Delegated Aboriginal Agencies

Delegated 

Aboriginal Agencies 

How resourcing affects service delivery 

March 2017

Front cover artist: 

Carla Joseph is of Métis and Cree heritage and is from Prince George, B.C. She has 

been an artist for more than 20 years and has illustrated three children’s books in 

addition to having created many logos, murals, posters and paintings for a number 

of organizations. About the front cover artwork she says: “This piece represents all 

families. The feathers symbolize strength and protection and that being together as 

a family or community makes you stronger.”

March 30, 2017 

The Honourable Linda Reid 

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 

Suite 207, Parliament Buildings 

Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4 

Dear Ms. Speaker, 

I have the honour of submitting the report Delegated Aboriginal Agencies: How resourcing 

affects service delivery to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This report is prepared 

in accordance with Section 6(b) of the Representative for Children and Youth Act. 

Sincerely, 

Bernard Richard 

Representative for Children and Youth 

pc: Mr. Craig James, QC 

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly 

Ms. Jane Thornthwaite, MLA 

Chair, Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth

ii Delegated Aboriginal Agencies: How resourcing affects service delivery March 2017

Contents 

Acknowledgement .......................................................... 2 

Executive Summary ......................................................... 3 

Scope and Methodology ...................................................... 7 

Background ............................................................... 11 

Findings and Analysis ........................................................ 27 

Conclusion ................................................................ 50 

Acronyms ................................................................. 53 

Glossary .................................................................. 54 

Appendices ................................................................ 57 

References ................................................................. 63 

Contacts .................................................................. 71 

March 2017 Delegated Aboriginal Agencies: How resourcing affects service delivery 1

Acknowledgement 

This report would not have been possible without the valuable contributions of the many individuals 

who participated in its development. The Representative would like to thank the dedicated front-line 

child protection workers in Delegated Aboriginal Agencies who serve Indigenous children, youth and 

families in communities across the province. Their willingness to honestly share their experiences and 

observations of a complex and poorly resourced work environment provided this report with insights 

into the challenges of delivering essential services and supports to vulnerable children in B.C. 

2 Delegated Aboriginal Agencies: How resourcing affects service delivery March 2017

Executive Summary 


In October 2015, the Representative for Children and Youth released a report that examined the 

tremendous challenges faced by child protection social workers and their supervisors working in the 

Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). The Thin Front Line concluded that inadequate 

staffing levels were leading to unmanageable workloads and, ultimately, to an increasing failure to meet 

important child welfare standards enshrined in British Columbia legislation. 

Not included within the scope of that 2015 report were the experiences of those who work in B.C.’s 

23 Delegated Aboriginal Agencies (DAAs) – the organizations that deliver child and youth services to 

many Indigenous communities and also to many Indigenous children and families living outside those 

communities. These 23 agencies serve nearly 1,900 of the approximately 4,400 Indigenous children in 

the care of the B.C. government, representing 42 per cent of all Indigenous children in care in B.C. 

The report that follows delivers that additional perspective on behalf of the staff from 17 of the 19 DAAs 

that provide guardianship services and, in some cases, also child protection services. It finds that while 

DAA social workers experience many similar challenges to their MCFD counterparts, those problems 

are exacerbated by a number of factors unique to circumstances in a delegated agency – most notably, 

that the need for services is greater and more complex because of the intergenerational effects of colonial 

policies such as residential schools. 

The result is a work environment that is often daunting for DAA staff and, even more significantly, a 

system that provides inequitable supports, services and protection for vulnerable Indigenous children in 

B.C. compared to what their non-Indigenous 

counterparts are likely to receive. It is a situation 

that the Representative believes both the 

provincial and federal governments must address 

in the currently shifting landscape of Indigenous 

child welfare. 

This report finds that funding levels and 

practices – by both the federal and provincial 

governments – present significant hurdles for 

DAAs and the staff who work in them. In light 

of DAAs being criticized for their work in recent 

high-profile child welfare cases, it is important 

for all British Columbians to better understand 

these hurdles and the effects they have. The fact 

is, the way DAAs are funded undermines their 

capacity to deliver essential services to vulnerable 

children and their families. 

A landmark 2016 decision of the Canadian 

Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found the 

federal funding model for Indigenous child 

welfare was flawed and discriminatory and in 

violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. 

What we found 

• The federal funding models for DAAs are flawed 

and discriminatory, leading to more children 

ending up in care. 

• The uncertain status of provincial planning 

for Indigenous child welfare, combined with 

inequitable and inconsistent funding to DAAs, 

has resulted in differences in support for children 

depending on where they live. 

• Lack of trust and communication among DAAs, 

MCFD and INAC adversely affects service 

delivery to children, youth and families. 

• Funding issues leave DAAs short-staffed and 

unable to provide comprehensive services that 

are needed. 

• Child welfare practice in DAAs is undermined by 

funding and staffing issues. 

• The capacity of DAAs to offer culturally based 

prevention services is limited by staffing and 

funding issues. 



Federal funding does not account for the real needs of children and families living on-reserve in B.C.; nor 

does the operational funding provided by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) adequately 

cover essential capital costs such as office space, computers or vehicles. Instead of promoting prevention 

or least disruptive measures, federal funding rules actually make it more likely that Indigenous children 

will be removed from their families, which undoubtedly contributes to the gross over-representation 

of Indigenous children in care. According to MCFD’s Service Plan, an Indigenous child is nearly 17 

times more likely to be in care than a non-Indigenous child. As one DAA executive director told RCY 

interviewers: “Right now, we’re still being funded based on the number of children in care. But if your ultimate 

goal is to keep children out of care, it’s a backwards set up.” 

Funding problems are not limited to the federal government, however. Inequitable and inconsistent 

funding arrangements between the B.C. government and DAAs have resulted in significant differences 

in the level and types of support available for B.C.’s Indigenous children, depending on where in the 

province they live and which DAA serves them. 

Nor does MCFD have a clearly defined and transparent method for determining its funding to individual 

DAAs. The province has no standardized method for accounting for the unique needs of remote and 

smaller agencies, cost-of-living increases, issues with recruitment and retention of staff or how geography 

affects operational costs and social worker time required to carry out their duties. 

Funding for each DAA in the province is negotiated on a one-off regional basis. The result is that funding 

to DAAs across the province is uneven, with agency contracts ranging from six months to two years in 

length, and leaving many DAAs with little ability to conduct long-term planning. DAA workers told 

RCY that a lack of transparency in how DAA contracts are negotiated with MCFD amounts to a “divide 

and conquer” approach by the ministry and leaves these agencies essentially competing with each other for 

an insufficient pool of funding. 

These significant funding issues, which have been raised in a number of recent reports by the CHRT, 

Grand Chief Ed John, B.C.’s Auditor General and the Representative’s Office, have resulted in DAAs 

being chronically understaffed and unable to provide services comparable to those received by children 

and families who are served by the ministry. Given previous RCY reports that have identified significant 

gaps in ministry services, this is deeply troubling. 

DAA child protection staff interviewed as part of this review reported carrying an average of 30 

cases at a time – 50 per cent more than is recommended by the Aboriginal Operational and Practice 

Standards and Indicators (AOPSI) guidelines by which they are supposed to operate. As interviewees 

for this review said, the inevitable result of such heavy caseloads, combined with a lack of sufficient 

clinical supervision, is an inability to comply with standards – no matter how strong the commitment 

by social workers to try to do so. 

While standards call for social workers to complete an investigation or a family development response 

within 30 to 45 days of receiving a child safety report, data provided by the ministry shows that 1,266 of 

1,770 – or nearly 72 per cent – of child protection files held by DAAs as of Dec. 31, 2016 had been open 

longer than 90 days. Said one DAA worker: “I can count on one hand the number of files I’ve closed in the 

‘required’ 30 days.” 



DAA social workers are not alone in their inability to meet standards. The Thin Front Line showed more 

than 8,200 child protection incidents still left open after 90 days in ministry offices. These standards are 

in place to protect children and the fact that failing to reach standards has become so commonplace in 

B.C. child welfare is deeply troubling. 

Contributing to heavy caseloads is the fact that staff recruitment and retention is made difficult for DAAs 

because their funding constraints mean they often cannot afford to pay equal wages or offer training and 

benefits comparable to what is offered by MCFD. Staffing levels in most agencies fluctuate due to high 

turnover, sick leave, stress leave and parental leave for which there is insufficient coverage. One DAA 

worker told RCY interviewers: “There’s just not enough time; you end up putting out fires and making sure 

kids are safe, and the rest falls to when you can get back to it.” 

Lack of reliable or adequate funding for DAAs also means a shortage of services for children and families 

served by many of these agencies, especially in rural and remote areas – most notably Child and Youth 

Mental Health services, parenting programs and early childhood development programs. 

DAA social workers, team leaders and executive directors interviewed for this report also emphasized that 

their ability to provide culturally based prevention services is severely limited by staffing and funding 

issues. Many said that a huge gap exists between the services agencies can offer, and what programs and 

supports are actually needed in order to keep Indigenous children out of care. Delivering culturally based 

services takes time, which DAA workers repeatedly told RCY interviewers they simply don’t have. Yet, 

these services are required by legislation. 

In addition to the key issue of resources, DAA staff also told RCY interviewers that a lack of trust 

between DAAs, MCFD and INAC adversely affects service delivery for Indigenous children. Although 

there were some comments about positive developments and hope for these relationships improving, 

DAA workers generally complained of a lack of co-operation from MCFD and of a “paternalistic” 

relationship rather than a true partnership with the provincial ministry. With regard to INAC, DAA staff 

and leadership generally reported having a very limited relationship with their federal counterparts that, 

for all intents and purposes, does not extend beyond the provision of insufficient federal funding. 

It is widely recognized that Indigenous families and their children struggle with the negative effects of 

intergenerational trauma caused by colonial policies of years past. Therefore, the goal should not be 

merely for DAAs to be resourced to provide services equal to those provided by MCFD. The goal should 

be for DAAs to be able to go beyond ministry services by offering services that address the real needs of 

Indigenous families in a culturally based way. Assessment of service needs cannot simply be tied to child 

population levels on-reserve, but rather to actual needs that take into account the devastating effects of 

colonial policies of the past. As one DAA worker described it: “Families have been colonized, invaded, 

murdered, assimilated, and it’s as raw as it was 15 years ago.” 

There are promising signs that the provincial government intends to address these issues. MCFD 

has committed to implementation of many of the comprehensive recommendations of Grand Chief 

Ed John’s report, Indigenous Resilience,Connectedness and Reunification – From Root Causes to Root 

Solutions, released November 2016. As well, the ministry has received a significant lift in its budget 

for 2017/18, including for Indigenous child welfare services. But those new resources are not yet in 



place and whether they will be sufficient to meet the challenge has yet to be seen. RCY will be closely 

monitoring progress, with the findings of this report being used as one baseline measure against which 

future improvements can be assessed. 

In this regard, we also note that despite the commitment to new initiatives and the addition of new 

resources, MCFD’s current Service Plan sets a performance target for a reduction of just less than one 

per cent in the rate of Indigenous children in care by 2019/20 and also sets a performance target that 

actually slightly increases the huge disproportionality in the rates of Indigenous children in care as 

compared to non-Indigenous children in care. The situation is dire – surely we can do better than this. 

Expectations from this Office are that if the needs of Indigenous children and families are to be 

addressed, the findings of this report must be duly considered by both the provincial and federal 

governments. Given the urgent need to sort out funding practices and levels, INAC must remedy 

funding flaws to Indigenous child welfare services, and funding of DAAs should be part of current 

tripartite discussions about funding and jurisdiction. It is clear that DAAs and their workers must have 

the resources necessary to do their important work and to do it in a culturally based way that can better 

support families and prevent more Indigenous children from coming into care, while providing better 

services to those hopefully far fewer Indigenous children who do have to come into the system. For that 

to happen, endless bureaucratic and jurisdictional squabbles must be resolved once and for all and the 

needs of Indigenous children put first. 

To continue to do less than this is clearly unacceptable. 


Scope and Methodology 


Scope 

The Representative has a mandate under the Representative for Children and Youth Act (RCY Act) to 

monitor, review, audit and conduct research on the provision of designated services for the purpose 

of making recommendations to improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of those services, and to 

report publicly on findings. Under this mandate, the Representative has a particular focus on services 

to Indigenous children and youth. Given their 

significant vulnerabilities, special attention 

is warranted to understand how the needs of 

Indigenous children and youth are being met. 

In B.C., child welfare services for Indigenous 

children and families are a provincial 

responsibility with services delivered by either 

MCFD or one of 23 DAAs. Eleven of these 

agencies provide full child protection services, 

eight provide guardianship services and four 

provide voluntary services (see text box on 

delegation for further explanation). This report 

focuses on front-line child protection staffing 

issues in the 19 DAAs that are delegated to 

provide full child protection services and/or 

guardianship services. 

The scope of this review was determined by 

consulting key literature in the field and by 

conducting a jurisdictional scan of staffing 

practices for social workers providing child 

protection, child welfare and safety services 

for Indigenous peoples across Canada and 

internationally. Additionally, the Representative 

reviewed policies and standards set by MCFD 

for DAAs, as well as other documents (e.g. 

policies, standards, plans, funding documents) 

and performed an analysis of federal and 

provincial approaches to funding DAAs. 

What is delegation? 

The level of delegation that a DAA receives from 

MCFD dictates the range of services it is mandated 

to perform under the Child, Family and Community 

Service Act (CFCS Act), which of the Aboriginal 

Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators 

(AOPSI) and ministry standards it is required to 

follow, and which of these standards the agency 

will be audited against. There are three tiers of 

delegation that reflect the operational category 

of an agency: 

• Category three (C3) allows for the provision of 

voluntary services as well as the recruitment and 

retention of residential resources (foster homes). 

This includes authority to provide support 

services for families, voluntary care agreements, 

special needs agreements and to establish 

residential resources for children in care. 

• Category four (C4) includes all the legal authority 

in C3 plus additional responsibilities to carry out 

guardianship duties for children and youth in 

continuing custody. These include permanency 

planning, transitions out of care and managing 

Care Plans. 

• Category six (C6) includes all the legal 

responsibilities of C3 and C4 plus full 

authority for child protection duties, including 

investigation of child abuse or neglect reports, 

placing children in care, obtaining court orders 

and developing safety plans. 

• Adoption: To be able to perform adoptions 

work, agencies must be delegated under the 

B.C. Adoption Act (Sinha & Kozlowski, 2013, 

MCFD Delegation Matrix). 



Methodology 

The data for this report was drawn from a number of sources, including a literature review of staffing 

issues in DAAs, an analysis of documents provided by MCFD, and face-to-face and telephone interviews 

with a number of child protection social workers, team leaders and executive directors, all of whom work 

for DAAs in B.C. The primary focus of this review is on staffing conditions for front-line child protection 

workers, thus only front-line staff from agencies providing these services were interviewed. Interviews 

with social workers and team leaders were conducted in 2015 and 2016 and interviews with executive 

directors were conducted in 2016. 

To request interviews, the Representative’s Office sent letters to DAAs that provide full child protection 

intake and investigation services. This request outlined the goals of the review and asked permission 

to interview two social workers and one team leader from each agency. Seventeen DAA social workers 

and 11 team leaders agreed to be interviewed for this review, representing 10 of the 11 agencies that 

provide full child protection services. Seven of the social workers interviewed work on specialized intake 

or investigation teams, while the other 10 workers provide generalist services that can include child 

protection and family services as well as resources and guardianship services. 

Ten team leaders working at these same DAAs were also interviewed for this review. Team leaders provide 

supervision to either child protection social workers or to generalist teams as well as fulfilling a variety 

of other responsibilities. All of these workers and team leaders have a C6 delegation, meaning they have 

been delegated to provide voluntary, guardianship and child protection services. 

To supplement the findings of these interviews, in the spring of 2016, the RCY requested interviews with 

all executive directors in both C4 and C6 agencies (see text box on delegation on previous page), with 

17 of 19 agencies participating. Seven executive directors interviewed represent agencies that provide 

guardianship services and 10 executive directors represent agencies that provide full child protection 

services. Executive directors, most of whom work on behalf of Indigenous communities and leadership, 

provide general oversight to their agencies in terms of operations, delegated responsibilities, budget, 

staffing, policy and standards. 



Figure 1: An Overview of Interviews Conducted with DAA Staff 

23 

Delegated Aboriginal 

Agencies in B.C. 

11 

C6 delegated 

agencies 

8 

C4 delegated 

agencies 

4 

C3 delegated 

agencies 

10 

Executive Directors 

interviewed 

7 


interviewed 

No C3 agencies 

interviewed 

11 

Team Leaders 

interviewed 

No C4 Team Leaders 

or Social Workers 

interviewed 

17 

Social Workers 

interviewed 



The majority of interviews were conducted on-site. Interview questions were developed based on the 

interview guide used for the 2015 RCY project on MCFD staffing, a literature review about issues in 

similar Indigenous child welfare agencies, MCFD documents, and insights from key stakeholders who 

work in and with DAAs. 

Data was analyzed by using a constant comparative method, which involves identifying key themes and 

issues and confirming their validity by constantly checking and comparing these findings against all 

interviews (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 275). To confirm the validity of initial findings, RCY prepared and 

distributed summaries of interview findings to all interview participants. The RCY research team then 

held teleconferences for interview participants in July 2016 – one for social workers and team leaders and 

one for executive directors. At each of these teleconferences, participants were invited to provide feedback 

on the preliminary findings during the teleconference or afterwards in writing. The feedback was then 

integrated into the findings presented in this report. 

The findings of these interviews were supplemented with an analysis of approximately 150 MCFD 

documents, including service contracts and other funding documents, delegation agreements, standards 

for practice and caseload, and MCFD plans and policies related to DAAs. In addition, the reports of the 

Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the findings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 

(CHRT 2, 2016), and federal funding documents and research literature on DAA funding in Canada 

were thoroughly reviewed, as was Grand Chief Ed John’s November 2016 report on Aboriginal child 

welfare in B.C. 

For the purposes of privacy, the names of interview participants and DAAs have been kept confidential. 

This report uses the term Indigenous to identify peoples who are First Nations, Inuit and Métis. The 

term Aboriginal is used in this report when referring to children or youth in government care as defined 

in the B.C. CFCS Act and to reflect the title accorded to DAAs. Métis is used to describe people of 

mixed European (primarily French, British, Scottish) and First Nations ancestry who emerged as a 

distinct people in the 18th and 19th century in an area known as the historic Métis Nation Homeland, 

which includes the three prairie provinces and extends into Ontario and B.C. The Métis National 

Council defines Métis as “a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, 

is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry and who is accepted by the Métis Nation” (Métis Nation, n.d.). Only 

self-identification, not official Métis status, is required to be considered Métis in child welfare service 

provision in Canada. Where this report uses the term Status Indian, it refers to a legal category of persons 

defined in the Indian Act. 


Background 

Background 

Indigenous People in B.C. 

Indigenous people occupied the geographic boundaries of British Columbia for many thousands of 

years before the arrival of European settlers and represent diverse communities, cultures, traditions and 

histories. Before colonization, Indigenous peoples were self-governing and self-sufficient. Indigenous 

children were cared for by their families and communities according to the traditions, laws and spiritual 

beliefs of their people. These traditions were connected to the values of each First Nation and were 

expressed through world views and distinct cultures passed down through many generations. Many 

nations had their own cultural laws, systems and protocols to ensure the safety and well-being of 

their children. 

Today, there continues to be a rich diversity of Indigenous peoples in B.C. with approximately 200,000 

Indigenous people representing 203 distinct First Nations communities (First Nations Peoples’ Language 

Map of BC, n.d.). Approximately 30 per cent of Indigenous people in B.C. are Métis and approximately 

eight per cent of Indigenous children in the province are under the age of 19 (including Métis), representing 

the fastest growing child population in B.C. (BC Statistics, n.d.). 1 

Historical Context of Indigenous Children in Care in Canada 

Largely a result of colonial history, as well contemporary federal and provincial policies and practice, 

Indigenous children and youth are over-represented in Canada’s child welfare systems (Aboriginal 

Children in Care Working Group, 2015). Currently in B.C., more than 62 per cent of children in care 

are Indigenous (see Figure 2 for more information). This disproportionate representation of Indigenous 

children in the child welfare system can be attributed to the historic legacy of colonialism that includes 

a myriad of discriminatory government laws and policies that undermined Indigenous culture, inherent 

rights, custom laws, traditions and language. 

The arrival of settlers and the enforcement of settler laws, policies and practices in Indigenous territories 

disrupted traditional child-rearing practices, forcibly removed Indigenous peoples from their homelands 

and undermined traditional laws and governance structures. The imposition of colonial policies such as 

residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, 2 and the B.C. Adoption Act resulted in the removal of thousands 

of children from their homes, families and nations (First Nations Leadership Council Organizations, 

2012, p. 12). Colonization is not just an historical event in Canada – it has had, and continues to have, 

significant negative effects on the contemporary lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada. 

1 Population data on Indigenous persons is reported from the mandatory 2006 Census. The decision made by the 

former federal government to discontinue the mandatory Canadian long-form census in 2011 and to replace it with 

the voluntary National Household Survey resulted in serious gaps in demographic data. Caution should be exercised 

about Aboriginal child population estimates from the voluntary National Household Survey due to concerns about 

low response rates and resulting unreliable information. 

2 “Sixties Scoop” is a term coined by Johnson, 1983 and refers to large numbers of Indigenous children removed from 

their homes and fostered or adopted by non-Indigenous families. 


Background 

Figure 2: Indigenous Children and Youth in Care in B.C., Dec. 31, 2016 

7,010 

Total children and youth in care 

4,367 

(62%) 

Number of children in 

care who are Aboriginal 

1,870 

(42.8%) 

Number of Aboriginal 

children and youth in 

care served by DAAs 

2,497 

(57.2%) 

Number of Aboriginal 

children and youth in 

care served by MCFD 

23 

Number of 

DAAs in B.C. 


Background 

Figure 3: Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Children and Youth in Care (CYIC) 2006-2016* 

5000 Non-Aboriginal CYIC 

4589 4650 4584 4555 4500 

Aboriginal CYIC 

4447 

4384 4367 

4161 

4547 

4140 

4400 

3974 

4237 

4000 

3909 

3968 

3863 

3747 

3659 

3620 

3000 

2000 

1000 

In November 2014, MCFD began a project 

to improve the quality of electronically 

held data on children and youth in care. 

As a result of this data cleanup, the 

number of children and youth in care was 

revised downward by approximately 

1,000. In addition, the recording of a child 

or youth’s Aboriginal status became 

mandatory and therefore the number of 

children and youth in care who were 

recognized as being Aboriginal increased. 

2885 

2643 

0 

Dec-06 

Dec-07 

Dec-08 

Dec-09 

Dec-10 

Dec-11 

Dec-12 

Dec-13 

Dec-14 

Dec-15 

Dec-16 

* As of Dec. 31, 2016 

While residential schools and provincial child 

welfare systems had a devastating effect on the 

structure of Indigenous families, these schools 

were accompanied by the federal government’s 

systematic efforts to gain access and control 

over Indigenous lands. Treaties were signed 

between First Nations people living in the prairie 

provinces, northeastern B.C. and in some of 

the Territories. While the terms of these treaties 

continue to be violated, the lack of treaties in 

most of B.C. has made it even more possible 

for government officials to reallocate and reduce 

reserve lands. The loss of land limited First 

Nations’ access to fishing, hunting and trapping, 

and the remaining lands were insufficient 

From RCY’s Growing up in B.C. – 2015 

It is important to recognize that the disparities 

experienced by many Aboriginal children are a 

consequence of intergenerational challenges of failed 

government policies such as residential schools, 

Indian Act administration and negative stereotypes 

regarding the value of First Nations cultures and 

traditions, as well as multi-generational poverty, 

racism and discrimination 

— Dr. Jeff Reading, University of Toronto, 

Dalla Lana School of Public Health. 

to sustain agriculture or ranching. Despite resistance from First Nations communities, the loss of land 

combined with the attempt to eradicate culture through residential schooling severely undermined the 

economic and social success of many First Nations groups, as well as their ability to preserve traditional 

child rearing and family structures (McKenzie, et al., 2016). Also affecting this situation is the Indian Act, 

which formalizes an extensive system of colonial policies, practices and ideas directed at Indigenous people. 


Background 

The Sixties Scoop 

Until the 1950s, there were no child welfare services for on-reserve Indigenous people as the Indian Act 

of 1876, Canada’s oldest piece of legislation, did not address child welfare. Although a certain level of 

activity was undertaken by both the federal and provincial governments, there was no clear legal authority 

or delineation of responsibilities for child welfare. In 1951, the Indian Act was revised with the addition 

of section 88, making it possible to enforce provincial child welfare laws on Status Indians 3 living onreserve. 

Since then, the government of B.C. has been responsible for the delivery of child welfare services 

for all children, including Indigenous children living on- or off-reserve (Kozlowski, et al., 2012; RCY, 

2013; Sinha & Kozlowski, 2013). 

The breakdown of Indigenous families was accelerated in the 1960s by the removal, sometimes in mass 

numbers, of children from their families. As a recent report from the Office of the Child and Youth 

Advocate of Alberta describes, the 1960s “was the decade when non-Aboriginal Canadians became aware of 

the appalling living conditions on reserves. Instead of making reserves more livable, child apprehension workers 

were sent to remove children by the busload from what were deemed neglectful parents” (OCYA, 2016). 4 

Many of these so-called ‘scoop’ children were placed with non-Indigenous carers, in communities that 

were far from their original bands or reserves, resulting in the loss of their cultural and family connections 

(Blackstock, 2010). The consequences for these children and their families were tragic, with poor 

outcomes in mental health, educational and vocational success and future relationships (OCYA, 2016; 

Bennett, et al., 2005). 

The 1970s and Beyond 

In the 1970s, as part of a larger movement for self-government and autonomy, Indigenous organizations 

across Canada began to lobby the government to assume responsibility for child welfare within their own 

communities. In 1973, the first negotiated arrangement between a government and an Indigenous group 

was formalized, with an employee from the Blackfoot Band of Alberta being designated by the provincial 

government as a child protection worker, and the federal government agreeing to reimburse the band for 

services to children (Libesman, 2014). 

Despite numerous studies documenting the negative effects of removal of children from their families, 

the inordinate rate of removal of Indigenous children from their families continues in B.C. Federal and 

provincial child welfare funding policies described below have a significant influence on the excessively 

high numbers of Indigenous children coming into care. This legacy, combined with poverty and poor 

housing, contributes to family disruption, including child neglect – the primary reason Indigenous 

children are reported to child welfare authorities (First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, 2005). 

The high proportion of Indigenous children in contact with the child welfare system is of specific 

concern, given evidence showing poorer outcomes related to education, health and well-being for 

children and youth in care or receiving child welfare services than for the general child and youth 

population (Representative for Children and Youth & Office of the Provincial Health Officer, 2015). 

The high proportion of Indigenous children in care is also reflective of a system that discounts family as 

the preferred placement for children. 

3 The term “Status Indians” denotes a legal definition contained in the Indian Act. 

4 See also Bennett, Blackstock & De La Ronde, 2005. 


Background 

In B.C., First Nations leadership has long identified the need to assume more responsibility and authority 

over their children. The shifting of responsibility for Indigenous child welfare has been ongoing since 1986 

with the establishment of the first DAA: USMA Child and Family Services (Nuu-Chah-Nulth Territory). 

In March 1996, MCFD created the Aboriginal Relations Branch and Policy Division to help support 

additional Indigenous groups that wished to develop delegated authority agreements (Walmsley, 2005). 

In the intervening years, several important agreements and developments occurred that were detailed in the 

2013 RCY report When Talk Trumped Service. 

Many of these historical efforts were about ensuring that First Nations groups could structure and control 

their own child welfare systems and could provide culturally based social services. This is often difficult 

because Indigenous cultural services must adhere to a Eurocentric provincial legislative framework. 

Despite extensive efforts by Indigenous leadership in B.C. to exert full authority and jurisdiction over 

child welfare matters to reflect community and cultural practices and policies, this has yet to occur in a 

successful and systematic manner (FNLC, 2016, p. 31; Rousseau, 2016, p. 46). In B.C., none of these 

extensive efforts has led to recognition of the inherent right of Indigenous peoples over child welfare, and 

all require some sort of delegated authority. This, combined with the reality that many First Nations do 

not have the resources to effectively deliver services in their communities, means that some groups are not 

in a position to fully exercise the rights of self-determination in relation to children and families (FNLC, 

2016, p. 32). First Nations have, however, clearly asserted their intention to address the issue of capacity 

through rebuilding and reinvigorating their own traditions for the protection of children (Ibid). 

Recent Events 

Numerous recent events and reports have described the urgent need to address historical wrongs 

associated with Indigenous child welfare in Canada. Many of these reports provide insights into the 

context of why DAA staff face significant challenges as outlined in the Findings and Analysis section of 

this report. A diagram that illustrates major Canadian and B.C. reports on Indigenous child welfare is 

found on page 20. Some of these reports and events are described below. 

When Talk Trumped Service 

The release of the 2013 RCY report When Talk Trumped Service examined MCFD’s oversight of funding 

for First Nations governance and child welfare issues. The report included a detailed overview of funding 

to DAAs and other Indigenous groups. When the report was released, it drew criticism from some 

Indigenous groups and created a media firestorm because of the incorrect assumption that the purpose 

of the report was to criticize Indigenous people for spending money without full accountability and 

without adequate service delivery to children, youth and their families. It was not the intention of the 

Representative to ignore or negate Indigenous child welfare governance approaches. In fact, When Talk 

Trumped Service was primarily meant to challenge the provincial government to establish a framework 

for progress on Indigenous child welfare issues and to have a plan for working with First Nations, DAAs 

and others toward an Indigenous child welfare system. Following the release of this report, MCFD 

cancelled funding initiatives related to governance and child welfare, and developed tighter mechanisms 

for reporting that, according to interviewees in this report, have had negative impacts on services for 

Indigenous children and their families. 


Background 

Aboriginal Children in Care: Report to Canada’s Premiers 

In July 2015, the Council of the Federation of Premiers released a report on the over-representation of 

Aboriginal children in care across Canada. This report, prepared by the Aboriginal Children in Care 

Working Group, examined the root causes of over-representation, noting the harmful and enduring 

impacts of colonial policies in the form of poverty, lack of food security, lack of stable and secure housing 

and mental health and substance use challenges, among others. This report noted the important role of 

prevention and early intervention programs in preventing Indigenous children from coming into care. 

The report profiled culturally-based and/or prevention focused promising practices from across the 

country. These programs highlight the importance of Indigenous engagement, including community 

involvement, in services that have focus on strengthening and preserving families. It called for provincial 

and territorial governments, along with the federal government, to work with Indigenous leadership to 

create a system of care that includes a supported, skilled and informed workforce (Aboriginal Children in 

Care Working Group, 2015). 

Closing the Circle 

In 2015, the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU) released Closing the Circle: A 

case for reinvesting in Aboriginal child, youth and family services, which supplemented its 2014 report on 

staffing issues at MCFD. Closing the Circle took a closer look at workers providing Indigenous services 

either through MCFD or through one of the 23 DAAs in B.C. Its findings highlighted problems 

with high workload, lack of sufficient training, retention, lack of trust between agencies, MCFD and 

families, and insufficient funding for culturally based services for Indigenous children, youth, families 

and their communities. 

Some of Closing the Circle’s recommendations focused on developing and implementing a comprehensive 

Indigenous child and youth policy framework, establishing a core MCFD business area for Indigenous 

services, convening a strategic planning roundtable and developing an Operational Performance and 

Strategic Management Report that focuses on outcomes for Indigenous children and families. 

The report called on the B.C. government to acknowledge the right of B.C. Indigenous communities 

to fully exercise jurisdiction over their own children and concluded that B.C.’s Indigenous child 

welfare system needed significant investments if it was to be more than a patchwork of underfunded 

services (p. 20). Following the release of BCGEU’s 2014 report on MCFD staffing issues, the ministry 

announced that it would add 200 more workers to its roster. However, no similar announcement for 

Indigenous services resulted from the 2015 follow-up report, Closing the Circle. The ministry has not 

reported to the DAAs on the status of the recommendations from this report that would directly impact 

these agencies. 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) 

The TRC was created in 2008 under the terms of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, 

reached in 2006 and approved by courts in 2007. The purpose of the Commission was to reveal the 

truth about church-run residential schools, to collect the stories of survivors, to honour the courage and 

resilience of survivors and to document the individual and collective harms of these schools. The TRC 

was also created to “guide and inspire a process of truth and healing, that could lead to reconciliation within 

Indigenous families, and between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous communities, churches, governments 

and Canadians more generally” (TRC, 2015a). 


Background 

The reports of the TRC (2015a, 2015b) show that the mass incarceration of Indigenous children in 

residential schools led to multi-generational impacts that have had a profound and lasting effect on 

Indigenous peoples, communities and families. These schools were a “systematic, government sponsored 

attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal peoples so they no longer 

existed as distinct peoples” (TRC, 2015b, p. 107). 

Residential schools were also part of a national effort to conform Indigenous families to European 

settler notions of family and community (McKenzie, et al., 2016). These schools were aimed at 

separating Indigenous children from their parents and communities and resulted in many broken family 

connections and generations of Indigenous children growing up without parental support or the support 

of their extended family and community. Children sent to these schools were often subject to strict 

regimes of discipline, as well as physical and sexual violence that had long-lasting effects on families. 

The direct result for many children was the loss of family, community, culture, language and identity. 

To address the legacy of residential schools and to advance the process of reconciliation, the TRC made a 

series of calls to action on child welfare, education, language and culture, health, justice and the process 

of reconciliation (TRC, 2015c). The TRC’s recommendations on child welfare are included below. 

From the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC, 2015, p. 5). 

In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things: 

• Canada asserted control over Aboriginal land. In some locations, Canada negotiated Treaties with First 

Nations; in others, the land was simply occupied or seized. The negotiation of Treaties, while seemingly 

honourable and legal, was often marked by fraud and coercion, and Canada was, and remains, slow to 

implement their provisions and intent. 

• On occasion, Canada forced First Nations to relocate their reserves from agriculturally valuable or 

resource-rich land onto remote and economically marginal reserves. 

• Without legal authority or foundation, in the 1880s, Canada instituted a “pass system” that was 

intended to confine First Nations people to their reserves. 

• Canada replaced existing forms of Aboriginal government with relatively powerless band councils whose 

decisions it could override and whose leaders it could depose. In the process, it disempowered Aboriginal 

women, who had held significant influence and powerful roles in many First Nations, including the 

Mohawks, the Carrier, and Tlingit. 

• Canada denied the right to participate fully in Canadian political, economic, and social life to those 

Aboriginal people who refused to abandon their Aboriginal identity. 

• Canada outlawed Aboriginal spiritual practices, jailed Aboriginal spiritual leaders, and confiscated 

sacred objects. 

• And, Canada separated children from their parents, sending them to residential schools. This was done 

not to educate them, but primarily to break their link to their culture and identity. 


Background 

The Thin Front Line 

The 2015 RCY report The Thin Front Line reviewed budgeting and staffing practices at MCFD to assess 

the capacity of front-line child protection social workers to respond to child protection concerns in a 

timely manner. This report found that because of long-standing budget pressures at MCFD, the ministry 

does not have an adequate number of front-line child protection social workers. These staffing problems 

are made worse by heavy workloads, lack of coverage for vacancies and problems with recruitment and 

retention, particularly in rural areas. As a consequence of these conditions, supervisors do not have 

enough time to provide supervision or mentorship and front-line workers reported that it is very difficult 

to meet the timelines set out in ministry standards. The Thin Front Line found that these problems take a 

toll on workers and often prevent them from building relationships with the families they serve. 

2015 Plecas Report 

On July 24, 2015, MCFD announced that it would conduct a review of concerns arising from a case 

where, in 2009, four children were removed from the care of their mother based on the mistaken belief 

that she was suffering from a mental illness. In August 2015, retired government deputy minister Bob 

Plecas was appointed as a Director in order to allow him to conduct the internal ministry review. Due 

to procedural delays resulting from court appeals and applications to the Information and Privacy 

Commissioner related to the case, Mr. Plecas’ terms of reference were amended to allow him to write 

an “interim report on the comparative analysis of applicable legislation, policy, standards and practice and 

recommendations for the improvement of ministry and other systemic processes” (Plecas, 2015, p. 11). This 

interim report was released to the public on Dec. 14, 2015. Part two of Mr. Plecas’ review was slated to 

be released in spring 2016 although, to date, it has not been released. 

The Plecas report offered “wide ranging commentary, perspectives and recommendations on various aspects 

of the ministry, its staffing and organization, its funding, its operations and its expectations of its staff” 

(Representative for Children and Youth, 2016). The Plecas report went on to offer options for moving 

forward, including a multi-year plan entailing significant changes described by Plecas as a “roadmap” 

for the years ahead. The Plecas report lacks an Indigenous perspective and excludes input, analysis 

and recommendations from the DAAs. It is discussed in more detail in the Findings and Analysis 

section of this report. 

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 

In 2007, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First 

Nations filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act with the Canadian Human Rights 

Tribunal (CHRT) (First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney 

General of Canada [for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada]). The foundation of the 

complaint was that INAC’s provision of services to Indigenous children and families living on-reserve 

and in the Yukon was discriminatory, on the basis of race and/or ethnic origin, because of inequitable 

federal funding to these services in comparison to funding of services for children living off-reserve 

(CHRT 2, 2016). After a number of unsuccessful attempts by the Canadian government to have the 

case dismissed, and after almost nine years of litigation, in January 2016 the CHRT found that the 

complaint was substantiated and that INAC’s funding practices were in violation of the Canadian 

Human Rights Act (CHRT 2, 2016). More discussion of the specific findings of the Tribunal is 

included in the Findings and Analysis section of this report. 


Background 

2016 Leadership Forum 

Following on commitments made at the 2015 B.C. Cabinet and First Nations Leadership Gathering, 

in May 2016, the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC), with support from the provincial 

government, held a gathering about First Nations child welfare. This gathering included elders, chiefs, 

advocates, experts, child-serving agencies, representatives from MCFD, B.C.’s Ministry of Aboriginal 

Relations and Reconciliation, INAC, RCY and community members for a discussion of issues facing 

First Nations child welfare in B.C. The gathering was meant to “increase understanding of root causes and 

opportunities in order to ‘chart a new way forward’” in child welfare (FNLC, 2016, p. 2). 

As a result of this meeting, B.C. government officials acknowledged the need to take action at the local 

level to ensure that social workers collaborate with Indigenous communities in an effort to let them know 

where their children are. The B.C. government committed to working with Indigenous leadership and 

the federal government to address child welfare funding issues and to participating in a working group 

on the governance of child welfare issues. MCFD has also reported that the proceedings of the gathering 

have influenced the development of its Multi-Year Action Plan released in early 2017. 

Grand Chief Ed John’s Report 

In September 2015, MCFD appointed Grand Chief Ed John as special advisor on Indigenous child 

welfare in B.C. Grand Chief John was asked to advise and report to the B.C. government on three areas 

related to Indigenous child welfare: 

• Focus on improving permanency options and rates of Indigenous children in care, particularly for 

those with Continuing Custody Orders (CCOs) 

• Work to identify next steps for B.C. following the release of the Council of the Federation’s July 2015 

report, Aboriginal Children in Care – Report to Canada’s Premiers, and 

• Assist the Minister of Children and Family Development in developing advice to Cabinet on these 

matters as necessary (John, 2016, p. 8-9). 

Grand Chief John’s report, Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification – From Root Causes to 

Root Solutions, released in November 2016, described many of the root causes for the over-representation 

of Indigenous children in care as well as the complex funding arrangements for Indigenous child welfare. 

He noted the importance of recent events, such as the release of the 2015 reports of Canada’s Truth and 

Reconciliation Commission, the report of the Council of the Federation of Premiers in 2015 and the 

2016 CHRT decision, for the future of Indigenous child welfare in B.C. 

To improve Indigenous child welfare, Grand Chief John recommended that governments and 

Indigenous leadership work together to address root causes such as poverty, lack of safe housing and the 

intergenerational effects of racist government policies and laws. Grand Chief John also recommended 

specific short-term actions that should be taken to improve legislative and administrative measures in 

child welfare. All recommendations contained within the report were grounded in the recognition of the 

inherent rights of Indigenous children and youth. 

Grand Chief John’s report highlighted the poor relationships that often exist between communities and 

MCFD, as well as between DAAs and the communities they serve, and recommended that nation-tonation 

protocols be established to support more respectful and cooperative relations going forward. 


Background 

Not Much has Changed: 16 Years of Major Reports 

on Indigenous Child Welfare 

The report also recognized the larger context of poverty and intergenerational trauma wrought by the 

history of colonialism, and appealed to government to make an effort to address structural issues such as 

poverty, housing and income supports. Grand Chief John’s discussion of federal funding for child welfare 

foreshadowed the findings of this report, including the flaws in federal funding formulas and the lack of 

funding for prevention services. Grand Chief John also heard from communities and DAAs that existing 

DAAs were originally designed to be an interim measure as part of the transition to full Indigenous 

jurisdiction in child welfare, but that little progress has been made on moving toward this goal (p. 169). 

More discussion of the implications of Grand Chief John’s recommendations is included in the Findings 

and Analysis section of this report. 

Figure 4: Not Much has Changed: 16 Years of Major Reports on Indigenous Child Welfare 

2016 Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification Grand Chief Ed John 

2015 

2016 

2015 

Ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 

Aboriginal Children in Care: Report to Canada’s Premiers 

Closing the Circle: A case for reinvesting in Aboriginal child, 

youth and family services in British Columbia 

2015 Report of the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada 

2011 Report of the Auditor General of Canada 

2008 Report of the Auditor General of Canada 

2000 

2005 Wen:de: We are Coming to the Light of Day 

National Policy Review (Assembly of First Nations, INAC) 

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies in B.C. 

MCFD has legal authority under the CFCS Act and responsibility for the child welfare service needs 

of all children and their families in B.C. The B.C. Provincial Director of Child Welfare at MCFD 

negotiates and enters into delegation agreements with agencies. Through these delegation agreements, the 

“Provincial Director gives authority to Aboriginal agencies, and their employees, to undertake administration 

of all or parts of the CFCS Act. The amount of responsibility undertaken by each agency is the result of 

negotiations between the ministry and Aboriginal community served by the agency, and the level of delegation 

provided by the minister” (MCFD, 2017a). 

There are currently 23 Aboriginal agencies operating under a DAA model in B.C. As Figure 5 notes, DAAs 

across the province are delegated under the CFCS Act for one of three different levels of responsibility 

(voluntary services, guardianship, child protection). Eleven agencies are delegated to perform all child 

protection work, including investigations of child safety reports; eight can provide guardianship services 

to children and youth already in care; and four agencies provide only voluntary services. Two of the 23 

agencies, Lalum’utul’Smun’eem and Métis Family Services, are also delegated to perform adoptions under 

the Adoption Act. One of these 23 agencies provides services to Métis children and families (MCFD, 2016a; 

Bennett, 2015). As of Dec. 31, 2016, DAAs were responsible for approximately 43 per cent of Indigenous 

children and youth in care, which is just under 1,900 children (MCFD, 2016i). 


Graphic 2 

Map of Delegated Aboriginal Agencies 

Figure 2: Map of Delegated Aboriginal Agencies 

Background 

Figure 5: Location Map: Delegated Aboriginal Agencies 

Old Massett 

Skidegate 

Prince Rupert 

21 

New Aiyansh 17 

18 

14 

Hazelton 

Terrace 

Burns Lake 

15 Fort St. James 

Vanderhoof 

13 

Prince George 

22 

Bella Bella 

3 

20 

Williams Lake 

Nanaimo 

West Vancouver 

Duncan 

Saanichton 

Agassiz Victoria 

Vancouver Chilliwack 9 

Surrey Mission 

North Vancouver 

West Vancouver 

12 

11 

New Westminster 

Delta 

10 

Maple Ridge 

Langley 

Abbotsford 

23 Alert Bay 

Port Alberni 

8 

Lytton 

2 

1 

16 Saanichton 

19 

5 Merritt 

7 

6 Kamloops 

4 

Windermere 

Cranbrook 

Creston 

Level C6* 

1 Lalum’utul’ Smun’eem Child & 

Family Services (Duncan) 

2 Kwumut Lelum Child & Family Services 

(Nanaimo, Penelakut Island) 

3 Knucwentwecw Society (Williams Lake) 

4 Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Child & Family 

Services (Cranbrook, Creston, 

Windermere) 

5 Nlha’7kapmx Child & Family Services 

Society (Lytton) 

6 Scw’exmx Child & Family Services 

Society (Merritt) 

7 Secwepemc Child & Family Services 

Agency (Kamloops) 

8 Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council Usma 

Family and Child Services (Port Alberni) 

9 Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children and 

Family Services Society (Chilliwack, 

Mission, Agassiz, Abbotsford, Langley) 

10 Métis Family Services (Surrey) 

11 Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family 

Services Society (Vancouver) 

Level C4** 

12 Ayas Men Men Child & Family Services 

(West Vancouver) 

13 Carrier Sekani Family Services 

(Prince George, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof) 

14 Gitxsan Child & Family Services Society 

(Hazelton) 

15 Nezul Be Hunuyeh Child & Family 

Services Society (Fort St. James, 

Prince George) 

16 Nil/Tu,O Child & Family Services Society 

(Saanichton) 

17 Nisga’a Child & Family Services 

(New Aiyansh, Prince Rupert, Terrace) 

18 Northwest Inter-Nation Family and 

Community Services Society 

(Terrace, Prince Rupert) 

19 Surrounded by Cedar Child and 

Family Services (Victoria) 

Level C3*** 

20 Denisiqi Services Society 

(Williams Lake) 

21 Haida Child and Family Services 

Society (Old Masset, Skidegate) 

22 Heiltsuk Kaxla Child & Family Service 

Program (Bella Bella) 

23 K’wak’walat’si (‘Namgis) Child and 

Family Services (Alert Bay) 

* C6 - Full child protection services 

** C4 - Guardianship services 

for children and youth in 

continuing care 

*** C3 - Voluntary service delivery 


Background 

There are two types of DAAs in B.C.: band or tribal council operated. These DAAs are part of a band 

or tribal structure. The other type of DAA is society operated and guided by an independent board. 

Societies can operate both land-based First Nation DAAs as well as urban-based DAAs. 

Two sets of standards apply to DAA social workers: ministry child welfare standards and the Aboriginal 

Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators (AOPSI), both of which set out minimum standards of 

practice for DAA-based voluntary, guardianship and child protection services (MCFD, 2005). 

Quality assurance activities in DAAs are carried out by the ministry through case practice audits that 

check for compliance with AOPSI and other relevant ministry practice standards. 5 The audit process is 

intended to highlight areas of improvement for practice, provide a baseline measure for future reviews 

and identify strengths. The ministry also conducts periodic operational and financial compliance reviews 

(MCFD, 2016h). 

Services for Métis Families and Children 

The Daniels Decision, a 2016 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, declared that Métis and non-status 

Indians are “Indians” under s.91 (24) of the Canadian Constitution. This means that the federal 

government has legislative jurisdictional responsibility to address Métis peoples’ rights, interests and 

needs. This ruling does not mean that the Métis are entitled to the same benefits as Status Indians but 

allows for future discussion on the needs of Métis. It is unclear how the Daniels Decision will impact 

child welfare. 

The federal government has not acknowledged any responsibility for provision of child welfare services 

for Métis children and families (Aboriginal Children in Canada Working Group, 2015, p. 9). In fact, 

federal responsibilities towards Métis peoples in general are not well-defined. This general lack of clarity 

around roles and responsibilities has resulted in a mix of funding models and reporting structures for 

Métis services across the provinces and territories (Canada’s Premiers, p. 8). As of 2016, INAC does 

not provide funding to Métis child welfare services. Funding for off-reserve child welfare services is the 

responsibility of provinces (Sinha & Kozolowski, 2013). 

Funding for Delegated Aboriginal Agencies 

How DAAs are funded can vary from agency to agency depending on a number of factors and, because 

of this, can have a significant impact on DAA staffing. How and who funds DAAs depends on a child’s 

legal status, where a child lives (on- or off-reserve), the existence of a DAA in the community, that 

agency’s level of delegated authority and the financial resources of the applicable MCFD service delivery 

area. Funding for DAAs thus involves a complex mix of sources and rules. A diagram summarizing 

funding arrangements is included in Figure 6. 

5 For examples of case practice audits of DAAs see: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/ 

datamonitoring-quality-assurance/reporting-monitoring/accountability/aboriginal-case-practice-audits 


Background 

Figure 6: Indigenous Child Welfare Service Delivery and Funding Structure 

Off-Reserve – DAA Served, 

Provincially Funded: 

Indigenous children including 

Status Indian children, served 

by urban DAA providing 

delegated services 

Off-Reserve – MCFD Served 

and Provincially Funded: 

All Aboriginal children, 

including Status Indian children, 

not served by urban DAAs, and 

for non-delegated services 

DAAS 

PROVINCE 

INAC 

On-Reserve – MCFD 

Served, Federally and 

Provincially Funded: 

Status Indian children 

eligible for federal funding, 

no band operated DAA 

On-Reserve – DAA 

Served, Provincially Funded: 

Indigenous children not eligible 

for federal funding, band operated 

DAA providing delegated services 

On-Reserve - DAA Served - 

Federally and Provincially 

Funded: 

Status Indian children eligible for 

federal funding, band operated 

DAA providing services 

Source: Adapted from When Talk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost Opportunity for Aboriginal Children 

and Youth in B.C., 2013 report of the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth. This diagram was also 

included in Grand Chief Ed John’s 2016 report. 

Funding Arrangements On-Reserve 

The federal government funds First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) on-reserve and in the 

Yukon through INAC. Child and family service agencies located on-reserve must adhere to relevant 

provincial or territorial laws in order to receive federal funding. 

Across Canada, the federal FNCFS applies four different child welfare funding approaches: 

1) funding arrangements with provinces and territories 

2) Directive 20-1 

3) the Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach (EPFA), and 

4) the 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement in Ontario. 


Background 

Of these funding approaches, only Directive 

20-1 applies in B.C. (see text box). Services are 

only funded when they are provided on-reserve, 

limiting the number of available options for 

children and families in smaller communities. 

This directive does not adequately cover the costs 

of prevention, family support or least disruptive 

options, such as placing a child with a relative 

(CHRT 2, 2016, para. 385). More discussion 

of Directive 20-1 and its impacts on Indigenous 

child welfare is included in the Findings and 

Analysis section of this report. 

When MCFD Provides Services 

on-Reserve 

INAC reimburses the province for the delivery 

of child and family services to certain First 

Nations communities on-reserve where there 

are no FNCFS agencies or an agency is not 

fully delegated. Eighty-four First Nation 

communities in B.C. receive services under 

the Service Agreement Regarding the Funding of 

Child Protection Services of First Nations Children 

Ordinarily Resident on Reserve (John, 2016, p. 32). 

The funding provided to B.C. under this 

agreement is not based on population levels or 

assumptions about children in care and families 

in need. Rather, the province is reimbursed for 

the actual costs or an agreed-upon share of the 

maintenance costs for children in legal care, for 

operational expenses for providing child and 

family services on INAC’s behalf. Included in 

this agreement are adjustments for inflation and 

increases in the costs of services, whereas DAAs 

Federal Funding Formula: Directive 20-1 

The federal government funds Indigenous child 

welfare through INAC. Of the four funding 

approaches used by INAC, Directive 20-1, which 

is only applicable to children who both live 

on reserve and are registered as status Indians 

under the Indian Act, is the only formula that 

applies to B.C. It has two main funding streams – 

maintenance and operations. Maintenance funding 

includes eligible reimbursable costs for children in 

care and some out of care options. Operational 

funding includes eligible costs of supporting the 

operations of an agency. The amounts provided 

in the operational funding formula are based 

on assumptions made in the early 1990s that 

on average, six per cent of the on-reserve child 

population will be in care, and that 20 per cent 

of families living on-reserve will require child and 

family services (CHRT 2, 2016, para. 128). There is 

no upward adjustment for agencies with more than 

six per cent of children in care. 

Of the four funding formulas used by INAC, 

Directive 20-1 provides the lowest level of funding. 

This formula is population-based, meaning the 

amount of operational funding received by agencies 

is dependent on the number of Status Indian 

children resident on a reserve. This formula does not 

provide funding for reserves where there are fewer 

than 250 Status Indian children. There are also 

substantial reductions in operational funding (up 

to 75 per cent) where fewer than 1,000 registered 

children are on-reserve (FNCFS, 2016b). 

do not receive these adjustments (CHRT 2, 2016, p. 119). In 2015/16, INAC agreed to reimburse the 

province $29.1 million for eligible MCFD employee costs, MCFD operational and maintenance costs, 

purchases services, operations, etc. (John, 2016, p. 110). 

Funding Arrangements Off-Reserve 

Child welfare services may also be provided to children and families living off-reserve. When this is the case, 

funding is solely the responsibility of the B.C. government, regardless of whether a child is a Status Indian 

or not. These services may be provided by either the ministry or a DAA. While many DAAs provide child 

and family services to children and families living either on- or off-reserve, in B.C. three DAAs provide 

services solely to off-reserve Indigenous children and families. Consequently, these three agencies receive 

only provincial funding. 


Background 

Literature Review: Staffing Issues in Indigenous Child Welfare Agencies 

The following is a brief review of existing literature on staffing issues in Indigenous child welfare agencies, 

organized by issue. 

Lack of culturally sensitive training and learning opportunities: Approaches used by mainstream 

child welfare agencies may not be appropriate for all Indigenous families and children (Libesman, 

2014). Thus, culturally based training and development opportunities are crucial to providing services 

to Indigenous families and to avoid loss of cultural identity for children placed outside of their families 

and communities (Libesman, 2004). These training opportunities can be limited at DAAs due to budget 

restrictions (Cemlyn, 2009; Pivot Legal Society, 2009; Southern First Nations Network of Care, 2010). 

As DAAs operate independently of one another, training opportunities that are available in one office 

may be impossible to obtain in another. At the same time, training needs are often not based on nationspecific 

principles and values. 

Competing child protection standards: Research shows that Indigenous social workers are often 

guided in their work by strong value-based motivations rooted in culturally based worldviews. These 

values and worldviews can be at odds with provincial child protection standards which may minimize 

significant cultural differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families and limit workers’ ability 

to interpret child protection policies in ways that are consistent with Indigenous traditions and practices 

(Rousseau, 2016; Walmsley, 2005; Bennett and Zubrzycki, 2003). 

Challenges associated with working in one’s own community: Although providing child welfare 

services in rural and remote areas is not unique to DAAs, social workers in Indigenous communities 

are more likely than other child protection staff to face challenges related to working in their own 

communities in rural areas. These challenges can lead to workers feeling highly visible in small, tightknit 

communities; being under continued scrutiny from members of those communities; facing possible 

conflicts between being a social worker and being a friend/member of the community they serve; and 

being privy to information gained informally within the community that may conflict with information 

learned through official channels (Schmidt, 2008). Community members may also be wary and 

suspicious of social workers because of the social work profession’s complicity in historic and ongoing 

oppressive practices toward Indigenous communities (Rousseau, 2016). For these reasons, trust between 

social workers and community members is extremely important to ensure the success of child welfare 

agencies (Southern First Nations Network of Care, 2010). 

Limited community resources: Some DAAs may be located in or near urban centres, where public 

transportation is frequently available and specialized services such as mental health or special needs 

programs are available. While the intention is to use standardized assessment tools and response times, 

interviewees reported that even in urban areas there can be long wait times for mental health services. 

Other DAAs may serve very rural and remote communities where there is no public transportation, 

where specialized services have extensive wait-lists, and where children and youth must travel outside their 

communities to receive assistance (BCGEU, 2015). These challenges can be further complicated by the 

reality that DAAs have limited access to funding for clients who must travel to receive support services. 


Background 

Lack of wage and benefits parity: Although some DAA social workers who are fully delegated receive 

salaries that are comparable with their counterparts in government, the range of benefits offered to DAA 

staff, such as maternity, extended health, disability and education leave, is generally inferior because of 

a lack of funding (BCGEU, 2015). Other social workers who are not fully delegated do not have wage 

parity. Lack of wage and benefits parity can contribute to challenges with recruitment and retention of 

qualified staff. 

High workloads: The level of complexity associated with cases tends to be much greater for workers 

in DAAs than for other workers because of the complex issues facing Indigenous families and the time 

commitments related to culturally based practice. Workloads can be higher for DAA staff because they 

often use a relational approach that includes extended family and community members in child safety 

planning. Their work can also involve more extensive service referrals and more time may be spent 

navigating protocols or coordinating with bands or other DAAs (BCGEU, 2015). 

BCGEU’s 2015 report Closing the Circle identified workload as the No. 1 issue affecting DAA social 

workers’ abilities to perform their duties. Closing the Circle found that nearly two-thirds of DAA social 

workers believed that their offices were not adequately staffed or resourced, with almost 40 per cent 

“strongly” believing that this was the case. The report also found that staffing issues were leading to staff 

burnout, stress or physical ailments, resulting in high rates of sick leave. Because of a lack of backfill for 

short-term leaves and delays in filling vacancies, workers reported covering caseloads of colleagues who 

were on leave or on vacation, leading to unmanageably large workloads. These workload issues were 

compounded by shortages of administrative staff, resulting in social workers covering administrative 

duties rather than working in the field (BCGEU, 2015; Schmidt, 2008). 


Findings and Analysis 


Research, DAA staff interviews and analysis conducted for this report has led to a number of findings 

regarding service delivery to Indigenous children, youth and their families in B.C. 

What we found: 

• The federal funding models for DAAs are flawed and discriminatory, leading to more children 

ending up in care. 

• The uncertain status of provincial planning for Indigenous child welfare, combined with 

inequitable and inconsistent funding to DAAs, has resulted in differences in support for children 

depending on where they live. 

• Lack of trust and communication among DAAs, MCFD and INAC adversely affects service 

delivery to children, youth and families. 

• Funding issues leave DAAs short-staffed and unable to provide the comprehensive services that 

are needed. 

• Child welfare practice is undermined by funding and staffing issues. 

• The capacity of DAAs to offer culturally based prevention services is limited by staffing and 

funding issues. 

Details 

Finding: The federal funding system for DAAs is flawed and 

discriminatory, leading to more children ending up in care 

Funding for DAAs is determined by a complex and uneven combination of factors that includes 

delegation level, status of child and location of service provider. In addition to discriminating against 

Indigenous children and youth, INAC’s funding of Indigenous child welfare has not kept pace with 

inflation or other cost pressures, leading over time to shrinking pots of money available to provide 

services to children and families, particularly for prevention programs. 

The Ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 

The ruling of the CHRT, released in January 2016, found that INAC’s funding practices for Indigenous 

child welfare agencies and programs are in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act because of the 

racially discriminatory effects of the federal government’s approach to this funding. Even before the CHRT’s 

ruling, the federal government had been criticized for under-funding services for Indigenous children and 

not funding preventative and support services for families of children not in care, thus contributing to 

the over-representation of Indigenous children in care (Sinla & Kozlowski, 2013, p. 14). In fact, in 2008, 

the Auditor General of Canada found that federal funding formulas for Indigenous child welfare do not 

accurately reflect the work done by, or the actual costs associated with, the work of DAAs. 6 

6 INAC’s FNCFS program has been the subject of numerous reviews and reports: the First Nations Child and Family 

Services Joint National Policy Review (2000), the Wen:De reports (2004-2005), and two reports by the Auditor-General 

of Canada (2008, 2011). 



The central finding of the CHRT was that INAC’s FNCFS program uses funding formulas such as 

Directive 20-1 that are racially discriminatory and outdated. 

One of the most damning findings of the CHRT is that INAC’s funding mechanisms actually incentivize 

the removal of Indigenous children from their families (CHRT 2, 2016; FNC&FCS, 2016b). Directive 

20-1 provides operational funds for agencies based on a fixed and flawed population-based approach 

that does not account for the real needs of children and families living on-reserve. But funding for costs 

related to taking and maintaining children in 

care are reimbursable at cost. If agencies lack the 

operational funds to provide services to support 

families to keep their children at home, they are 

forced to bring children into care to ensure their 

safety. In effect, this funding formula does not 

promote prevention or least disruptive measures 

for children and families, but rather promotes the 

removal of children from their homes. 

As one executive director reported, “Right now, we’re still being funded based on number of children in care. 

But if your ultimate goal is to keep children out of care, it’s a backwards set up.” 

This report found many of the same difficulties with the current funding mechanisms as identified by 

the CHRT. Federal funding models do not take into account socioeconomic circumstances, the impact 

of historical trauma, individual characteristics of communities and severely disadvantaged agencies that 

DAA Voices 

“Even a small decrease in the numbers of 

children resident on-reserve can result in 

large funding decreases.” 

“It [Directive 20-1] has a tremendous 

negative impact on our agency and that is 

due to the size of the communities that we 

serve. We serve four communities and our 

child population count hovers tenuously 

close to the 250 mark.” 

From Grand Chief Ed John’s Report (2016) 

“The result of Directive 20-1 has been the emergence 

of a child welfare system that places Indigenous 

children in care to access services, rather than 

providing services to promote Indigenous families 

staying together.” (p. 108) 

serve communities with small numbers of children. Some 

agencies reported that they are continually under threat 

of losing their federal funding because of declining child 

populations on the reserves they serve. 

Interviewees also echoed the CHRT’s findings that 

operational funding provided by INAC does not account 

for core funding issues such as infrastructure costs, legal 

costs, vehicles, technology or administrative staff. Nor 

does funding adequately cover supervised visits between 

parents and children in care or the time and costs of 

addressing the unique geographic challenges faced by 

some agencies. 

The lack of funding to cover cost-of-living increases along with increases in the cost of services has 

hampered the ability of these agencies to offer salaries, benefits and training competitive with non- 

Indigenous child welfare agencies. 

Alarmingly, Directive 20-1 provides no funding for informal care arrangements, an essential part of the 

service toolkit for DAAs. These arrangements support placing a child in the home of a relative and/or 

in the community without a court order, effectively serving as a least disruptive measure and ensuring 

cultural continuity for children. Agency representatives confirmed that they either have inadequate or no 



funding for informal care arrangements. 7 Lack 

of operational funding to support informal care 

arrangements puts pressure on DAA staff to take 

children into legal care to address child safety 

concerns. 

The B.C. CFCS Act promotes the use of least 

disruptive measures that support families to safely 

care for children at home before considering 

removal, and mandates child welfare agencies to 

preserve kinship and a child’s Aboriginal identity 

(CFCS Act, 2.b and 2.f ). Because Directive 20-1 

From the Canadian Human 

Rights Tribunal ruling 

A failure of governments to invest in 

a substantial way in prevention and 

least disruptive measures is a false 

economy – the choice is to either 

invest now and save later or save now 

and pay up to 6–7 times more later 

(World Health Organization, 2004 as 

quoted in CHRT 2, 2016, p. 59). 

From Grand Chief Ed John’s Report 

In B.C., the Director’s decision to remove an 

Indigenous child, and a subsequent court order 

for that child’s placement in care, triggers federal 

funding payments. Alternative placements, where 

there is no court order, with extended family or the 

community for example, are not funded. In practice 

this has seen more children removed, and more court 

orders issued (p. 31). 

provides prevention and least disruptive measures on a fixedcost 

basis, and without sufficient funding, it is nearly impossible 

for DAAs to comply with provincial legislation. These funding 

deficiencies effectively result in an inequitable opportunity for 

Indigenous children to remain and/or be reunited with their 

families compared to non-Indigenous children. 

Finally, the CHRT also found that funding for prevention 

services and for culturally based services in Directive 20-1 

is negligible and has not increased in 25 years. This lack of 

prevention funding also does not align with the intention of the 

DAAs, which is to offer culturally based preventative supports 

to families and children 

The CHRT’s ruling ordered INAC to cease its discriminatory practices and reform its FNCFS program 

immediately, and to provide a comprehensive report indicating how it was addressing the findings in the 

Tribunal’s decision (CHRT 2, 2016). 

Further, in September 2016, the CHRT ordered INAC to take additional measures, including 

determining “budgets for each individual FNCFS agency based on an evaluation of its distinct needs and 

circumstances, including an appropriate evaluation of how remoteness may affect the FNCFS Agency’s ability 

to provide services” (p. 45). INAC was also ordered to cease the practice of reducing funding to agencies 

serving fewer than 251 eligible children and to fund these agencies based on an assessment of actual 

numbers of children in care and of families in need of services. INAC was told to produce a rationale 

that shows how it has adjusted funding approaches so that its approach to funding is not flawed and 

discriminatory (CHRT 16, 2016). 

7 In some cases, the costs of caregivers for informal care arrangements can be billed to INAC, but these agencies receive 

no operational funding to cover staff time to find suitable informal care arrangements. This forces agencies to use 

funding from other programs to support keeping children out of care. 



Finding: The uncertain status of provincial planning for Indigenous 

child welfare, combined with inequitable and inconsistent funding to 

DAAs, has resulted in differences in support for children depending on 

where they live 

The lack of both prudent planning and an overall provincial funding model for Indigenous child welfare 

persists in B.C., despite MCFD’s commitment in its Service Plan to “improve safety and well-being 

outcomes for Aboriginal children, youth and families” (MCFD, 2016e). Specifically, research conducted for 

this review showed that: 

• MCFD does not have a clearly defined method for determining the funding of DAAs based on an 

evaluation of the number of Indigenous children, youth and families in need of services. 

• The ministry does not have a rationale for addressing the distinct needs and circumstances of 

Indigenous children, families and their communities. 

• There is no standardized method for accounting for the unique needs of remote and small agencies, 

increases to inflation/cost of living, changes to provincial standards, the need for comparable salaries, 

benefits, training or other key operational costs. 

Ministry funding to the DAAs is provided in a similar manner to other contracted service providers – 

through time-limited contracts with specific deliverables – and is based on regional funding already 

decided by the ministry. Funding for each agency is negotiated on a regional basis between senior level 

regional ministry representatives and the executive directors of the DAAs, resulting in different contracts 

between regions. 

The Representative’s analysis of current funding contracts 

between MCFD and DAAs reveals that funding is 

allocated in an uneven way across the province, with 

contracts ranging from six months to two years. The 

results of differing contracts and their varied length 

impairs DAAs’ capacity to conduct long-term planning 

and is most notable in rural areas where a lack of funding, 

combined with few available community-based programs, 

continues to perpetuate inequities. 

DAA Voices 

Workers interviewed for this report decried 

the lack of transparency in how contracts 

are negotiated with MCFD, describing the 

approach as “divide and conquer.” 

Exacerbating the problem is the lack of standardization in how funding is allocated in MCFD regions. 

For example, the ministry funds some of the costs of children in care under DAA supervision, but 

these costs can be allocated either by block funding or by per diems per child – an entirely different 

approach that makes it difficult to compare one DAA’s funding to another. In addition, different 

agencies are funded based on varying salary grids and different operational costs (CHRT 2, 2016, p. 

124). In fact, some DAAs receive MCFD funding based on the number of children in their legal care, 

potentially creating the same problems as experienced with federal funding identified by the CHRT, i.e., 

incentivizing bringing children into care. 



The findings of this review echo the Representative’s 2013 report When Talk Trumped Service, as well as a 

2008 report from B.C.’s Auditor General – namely that, while MCFD espouses visionary plans and highlevel 

commitments to Indigenous child welfare, there is a disconnect between how the ministry plans for 

and supports Indigenous child welfare and how it supports actual service delivery. 

Furthermore, as in the 2008 report, this report finds that MCFD continues to lack the data it needs to 

determine both the service needs of Indigenous children and families and the staff resources required to 

provide appropriate levels of culturally based services. Nor does the ministry have an articulated model 

of service delivery that can address the unique experiences of diverse Indigenous populations in B.C. 

including on- and off-reserve and urban and rural communities. 

Several DAAs noted different, inequitable funding between their offices and MCFD offices regarding 

supplemental supports for foster parents, such as training, support, recruitment and retention. As one 

executive director said, “All the extra supplemental help and relief funds that foster parents get with the 

ministry, the ministry does not give us any of that funding.” While MCFD, for example, provides training 

for potential caregivers, most DAAs lack the funding to offer their own culturally based foster care 

training to potential caregivers. 

MCFD’s Aboriginal Service Innovations (ASI) is an example of a funding program that is meant to 

strengthen the capacity of agencies to offer culturally based services. The goals of this funding initiative 

include improving outcomes for Indigenous children in care and safely returning Indigenous children 

in care to their parents or, where that is not possible, finding temporary or permanent placements for 

them with relatives and/or community members. To date, this funding has been used in a variety of 

ways, including supporting family finders, kinship care and other culturally relevant support services 

(MCFD, 2016b). 

However, ASI is a time-limited proposal-based initiative without guarantees for future continued 

funding. Interviewees confirmed that while ASI has been important for supporting initiatives that would 

not otherwise be possible, it is still time-limited funding for programs that are essential to supporting 

the needs of Indigenous children and families. As Grand Chief John’s recent report on Indigenous child 

welfare in B.C. said, “There are no guarantees that ASI funds will be available for the following year, which 

severely jeopardizes program sustainability” (John, 2016, p. 171). A proposal-driven process also favours 

larger agencies that have the human resources to develop grant applications. 

Provincial Planning 

A review of MCFD’s 2016 Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework (AP&P) (MCFD, 2016f), reveals 

that the framework contains little in the way of specifics for DAAs. This framework – while a promising 

description of the important values that must underscore Indigenous child welfare practice – was not 

accompanied by strategic planning for funding and governance of Indigenous child welfare in B.C., 

or the role that DAAs will play in delivering services. MCFD has indicated that it plans to work with 

contracted service providers to implement this framework over a three-year period but, unfortunately, 

implementation has been devolved to the individual divisions of MCFD, potentially introducing 

fragmentation of efforts into this process (MCFD, 2016g). 



Without an overarching plan, government has yet to make specific commitments regarding how the 

values and Indigenous approaches to service provision identified in the AP&P can be implemented in 

front-line service provision. 

MCFD’s recently released Multi-Year Action Plan makes more significant commitments to Indigenous 

child welfare that are promising but still in their early stages (MCFD, 2017b). The implementation of 

programs and services related to this plan and to Indigenous child welfare could be an important turning 

point. The extent of the changes and of their impact on the number of Indigenous children in care, will 

be key factors in determining the success of MCFD’s recent commitments. 

Both the December 2015 Plecas report and the November 2016 Grand Chief John report also highlight 

the confusing status of provincial planning for DAAs. 

Plecas’ report was received with alarm by a cross-section of Indigenous groups in B.C. who expressed 

deep concern that recommendations contained in his report would be the basis for sweeping reforms 

at MCFD. The report was prepared with no engagement or input from Indigenous groups, or DAAs, 

despite the fact that Indigenous children comprise the majority of children in care. While Plecas 

recommended an increase in front-line MCFD staff, he made no parallel recommendation for staffing in 

the DAAs. In fact, MCFD announced in the spring of 2016 that it would be adding 120 new workers as 

a result of Plecas’ recommendations, with no analogous commitments for DAAs (MCFD, 2016g). 

In May 2016, MCFD announced the appointment of an Advisory Panel with members external to 

government to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of Plecas’ report (MCFD, 2016c). 

However, criticism of the membership of this Advisory Panel was swift, with both the Representative 

and the First Nations Leadership Council criticizing the lack of consultation with First Nations groups 

and lack of Indigenous representation among the members of the panel (RCY, 2016b). In July 2016, 

MCFD announced that the Advisory Panel would be disbanded and the ministry would seek broader 

consultation and feedback on the implementation of changes recommended by Plecas (MCFD, 2016d). 

In contrast to the Plecas report, Grand Chief John’s report acknowledged the contributions of DAAs to 

child welfare, including their valuable experience and their evolving capacity to support communitybased 

solutions to the roll-out of “effective child welfare services delivered in a culturally appropriate manner” 

(p. 171). While many of the findings and recommendations in the John report have previously been 

brought forward to MCFD and First Nations leadership by DAAs, John’s report included details not seen 

before about provincial funding to DAAs, although it was short on recommendations for these agencies. 

In particular, John recommended that funding for child welfare be devolved to Indigenous control, but 

did not clearly specify the role that current DAAs would play in such a devolved funding arrangement. 



Finding: Lack of trust and communication among DAAs, MCFD and 

INAC adversely affects service delivery to children, youth and families 

Research and interviews conducted for this report indicate that a lack of trust exists between MCFD 

and DAAs, and that DAAs have a limited relationship with INAC. The issue of underfunding to DAAs, 

coupled with poor communication and strained relationships, were found to affect the ability of DAAs to 

respond to the needs of vulnerable children, youth and families. 

Although some workers reported that they find 

relationships with MCFD to be mostly functional, 

and sometimes even positive, this was not the case for 

the vast majority of interviewees. Many interviewees 

commented on a range of issues that reflect deepseated 

problems between MCFD, INAC and DAAs. 

Many executive directors commented on an absence 

of trust between MCFD and DAAs, particularly 

related to decisions about how to respond to the needs 

of families and children. Respondents described the 

DAA Voices 

“I think when it becomes a bit more 

challenging is when push comes to shove and 

we’re not in agreement, then the ministry 

does pull power – and then they often do shut 

the door on us, they communicate less, they 

involve us less, and they tend to then have 

more meetings without us with families.” 

hierarchical relationship that often emerges when differences of practice arise related to families, and that 

MCFD does not treat them as full partners. 

Some executive directors described MCFD’s approach as more punitive and judgmental of families and 

less focused on family reunification. DAA social workers also reported a general lack of cooperation with 

DAAs and a paternalistic attitude toward DAA staff. 

Several executive directors commented that any positive working relationship with MCFD is the result of 

extensive efforts at relationship-building by DAAs. 

One of the key findings of the 2015 RCY report, The Thin Front Line, was that there is a high turnover of 

MCFD social workers across many offices. Many DAA executive directors confirmed that staff turnover 

in local MCFD offices presented significant challenges to the continuity and stability of the relations 

between the two offices. This can be particularly challenging in rural areas where MCFD social workers 

are continually changing because of the ministry’s difficulties with staff retention. 

Many executive directors reported that relationships with MCFD’s provincial office were, at best, 

difficult and, as they went up the management chain at MCFD, the relationship became more strained. 

Others commented that this relationship can also be unpredictable, with the provincial office at times 

inconsistent in its decision-making and insensitive to the demands it places on DAA staff. 

Relationships are also affected when MCFD issues changes to policy and procedures but does not provide 

adequate training resources to the DAAs to support the implementation of these changes. This lack of 

training is particularly concerning given the reality that DAAs, under federal legislation, must conform to 

provincial legislation and standards. 



While MCFD claims that its relationship with DAAs is based on a partnership, the reality on the 

ground is different. Overall, DAA executive directors described MCFD provincial office staff talking 

down to DAA staff or failing to appreciate the unique contributions that DAAs make to child welfare. 

Several DAAs also noted that the ministry does not take them seriously and often overrules child welfare 

decisions they make. 

Some noted that the relationship with 

MCFD declined even further after 

the release of the December 2015 

Plecas report because of the lack of any 

reference to the DAAs and the issues 

facing Indigenous families and children. 

On the federal side, most DAAs reported 

having a very limited relationship with 

INAC, describing their frustrations 

with INAC staff turnover in B.C. Other 

executive directors said: “I don’t even 

know who my advisor is down there. One 

hasn’t been assigned to me.” Some agency 

directors reported that INAC asks for 

their feedback and participation on 

committees, but rarely does this work go 

anywhere. Executive directors also noted 

that the relationship with INAC is not 

a trusting one. In fact, most executive 

DAA Voices 

“I don’t know how many [INAC] funding service officers 

I’ve had in the last three years. I can’t even count … it’s 

probably over 10? No – not a good relationship [with INAC]. 

It has never been a good relationship.” 

“We’ve done all this work [with INAC] and it’s sitting there 

doing nothing. Exceptional Costs Committee, I sat on 

that. It’s doing nothing. The Enhanced Prevention Focused 

Approach. I spent tons of time on that and there were 

people doing that long before I came along. And every time 

[INAC] realized it was costing them more money, they just 

shut the door.” 

“Federally, there’s a lack of trust, there’s a lack of 

collaboration, there’s a lack of partnership because they 

make a decision in Ottawa that adversely affects us and 

then there’s nothing that we can do. It’s very paternalistic.” 

directors were quite pointed about not only their lack of trust in INAC, but the lack of any meaningful 

contact they have with this federal department. 

Finding: Funding issues leave DAAs short staffed and unable to provide 

the comprehensive services that are needed 

DAAs reported that they do not receive enough funding from INAC or MCFD to adequately cover 

required staffing and costs of service delivery to children, youth and families. This lack of funding results 

in clear repercussions for recruitment and retention of qualified staff, in part because of wage and benefits 

disparities with MCFD. Agencies are forced to cope with this situation in a number of ways, sometimes 

by redeploying funding from urban-based programs, limiting staff wage and benefit increases or reducing 

service levels. Insufficient staffing also leads to high workloads, which in turn can lead to staff departures. 



Staffing levels and coverage 

Interviewees for this report clearly indicated that staffing levels in their agencies were insufficient to 

adequately address all incoming reports of child safety concerns in a timely manner. Compounding 

this challenge is the reality that staffing levels in 

most agencies fluctuate due to staff leaves, staff 

turnover and one-time project funding. All social 

workers reported that they provide coverage for 

absent colleagues and that there is insufficient staff 

coverage for sick and maternity leaves. In addition, 

few inflation-related funding increases from 

INAC mean that staffing levels in some agencies 

have declined over the years, leaving more work 

distributed among fewer colleagues. Small agencies 

feel the pinch the most since even just one staff 

member being away greatly impacts a team. As 

one interviewee said: 

“There needs to be a contingency plan for when 

people leave, otherwise cases stay open for a long 

time as they go from worker to worker and it’s 

hard to find out where all the documentation is.” 

Recruitment and retention issues 

Executive directors and their staff reported 

that recruitment and retention of experienced 

delegated workers is a considerable challenge for 

most DAAs. Turnover in these agencies appears 

to be high, and in several cases, interviews for this 

report took place just after or during a time when 

teams were going through significant changes in 

personnel, particularly at the team leader level. 

Recruitment and retention is made more difficult 

by funding challenges, with most executive 

directors unable to offer new and existing staff 

comparable wages and benefits to those offered 

Aboriginal Operational and Practice 

Standards and Indicators (AOPSI) 

Caseload Guidelines 

The 2009 AOPSI caseload guidelines address 

the maximum number of cases a worker should 

be allowed to carry at one time for voluntary, 

guardianship and child protection services. 

These guidelines must be weighted by severity 

of risk, geography, need for travel, remoteness 

and accessibility. 

The AOPSI standards suggest that: 

• workers providing voluntary services not have 

more than 25 files at any one time 

• workers providing guardianship services not 

have more than 20 files at any one time 

• workers providing child protection services not 

have more than 20 files at any one time. 

AOPSI includes the following caveat on these 

standards. “Note: This standard has been 

included at the request of the FNFCS agencies. 

The First Nations Director of Child Welfare regards 

these as guidelines rather than standards.” 

During interviews for this report, DAA social 

workers were each asked to estimate the 

size of their current caseload. The reported 

average was 30 cases each, suggesting that 

agencies have caseload pressures exceeding the 

recommended guidelines. 

by MCFD offices. Because the majority of social workers are women, DAAs find themselves in a doubly 

difficult position as they cannot match the maternity benefits offered by MCFD. Recruitment problems 

are compounded for smaller agencies located in rural areas, who generally have less funding flexibility 

to offer competitive wages. Agencies located in rural areas can also experience recruitment challenges 

because these areas can be seen as less desirable. Team leaders in small rural agencies echoed the 

difficulties of recruitment, noting that it can take up to six months to fill a vacant social worker position. 



Executive directors described how some social workers 

use DAA employment as a stepping stone or shortcut 

to get their delegation before obtaining employment at 

MCFD. The lack of parity in wages and benefits is even 

more noticeable when MCFD workers are seconded to 

fill vacancies in DAAs, as they continue to receive higher 

wages and benefits than what agency employees are 

earning for the same work. This lack of parity in wages 

and benefits creates unnecessary competition between the 

DAAs and MCFD to meet their staffing needs. 

DAA Voices 

“Some people leave the agency because 

they have to pay their own MSP premiums 

and it is very expensive” 

“MCFD has perks that the DAA can’t afford 

such as Pacific Leaders and MSP.” 

Because of recruitment challenges, executive directors noted that they often hire inexperienced and 

undelegated staff and support them through their training and delegation processes. These workers 

require more support from team leaders and more experienced colleagues, adding further pressure. The 

continuous cycle of hiring, training, and mentoring new workers only to lose them to employment in the 

ministry or elsewhere is exhausting for most agency employees. 

While the 2015 RCY report on staffing issues at MCFD noted similar findings, the situation for DAAs 

is not the same as at the ministry. Executive Directors reminded the RCY that the vision for most 

agencies, along with the expectation of their communities, is that social workers practice in a culturally 

based manner as well as provide mentorship and training opportunities for community members. These 

expectations place even more pressure on agencies to provide training and work in ways that do not easily 

accord with ministry approaches to practice. 

High workloads and caseloads 

Interviewees told the Representative that challenges with 

workload are part of the everyday life of DAAs as they 

routinely deal with a steady flow of incoming child safety 

reports. Because child safety concerns must be dealt with 

immediately, these reports take priority, forcing other 

responsibilities to the side of the desk. 

Child safety reports are particularly demanding as social 

workers must visit and properly assess several families, 

sometimes seeing multiple families in one day. 

Workers were not the only ones to report heavy 

workloads; team leaders can work up to 10 hours 

a day and then be faced with doing paperwork after 

hours to catch up. 

DAA Voices 

“There’s just not enough time; you end up 

putting out fires and making sure kids are 

safe, and the rest falls to when you can get 

back to it.” 

“I’m coming to work to put out fires 

for that day, until another one starts 

tomorrow.” 

“[It is] phone call after phone call. I would 

just get off the phone and there would be 

another.” 

“I would like to plan but there are too 

many emergencies. I often go out on cases 

[visiting families] and they turn out to be 

more than I expected.” 



Geography impacts workload 

Many rural DAAs serve multiple communities, some only accessible by rough roads, air or water. 

Interviewees noted that traveling time to visit families from numerous small and geographically 

spread-out communities has a huge impact on workload. As one social worker said, speaking for many: 

“I can fit three or four visits into the day in urban areas, whereas one rural visit can take the whole day.” 

Many agencies have small child protection teams, and this, combined with long travel times, results in 

children and families getting fewer visits. The impacts on staff include not only increased workload but 

also increased levels of exhaustion, particularly as visiting remote communities means long work days. 

Urban-based agencies are not necessarily immune to these challenges as they often serve both rural and 

urban communities. 

A routine part of a child protection social worker’s responsibilities includes appearing in court to support 

applications for Temporary or Continuing Custody Orders. In remote communities, courts can be 

located up to three hours away and this can compound workload beyond any worker’s capacity to plan. 

ICM and too much paperwork 

Workers and team leaders alike offered 

some of their most pointed criticism for 

the Integrated Case Management (ICM) 

computer system, and commented on 

how unnecessarily complex it is in terms 

of data input. ICM is often difficult to 

access in rural areas and connections are 

slow or are often dropped in the middle 

of a session. Family visits can also be 

challenging for workers when ICM fails 

in the middle of an assessment, sometime 

resulting in the loss of work. 

Workers reported that entering data into 

ICM is time-consuming and falls victim 

to high workloads. Workers often have 

to choose between getting the paperwork 

done and seeing families, reporting that 

paperwork is so extensive that “it doesn’t 

allow for enough home visits.” 

DAA Voices 

“The paperwork has grown. You now have to put the 

assessments in the computer and also do vulnerability 

assessments, safety assessments, plans etc. Paperwork 

takes up 60 per cent of my time.” 

“There’s too much paperwork. It keeps me and my admin 

staff here until 7 at night to get it finished.” 

“We are just paper pushers. Time with families is 

becoming less and less important in our work.” 

“I would rather spend three days a week with families 

than trapped at my desk trying to make ICM work.” 

“We’re spending more time here [in the office] than we 

are with the families.” 

Some interviewees also described how documenting so much information about a family in ICM is an 

obstacle for working culturally in the oral form, where healing and changes can happen with families. 



The high level of reporting required by MCFD can also be an obstacle, as described by one interviewee: 

“… when I spend most of my time informing MCFD policies and writing reports so that we can maintain our 

funding, then in my opinion they need to start paying my wage because I’m doing their work for them, and 

they’re not providing any additional resources for agencies to do their work, to inform their policies, to educate 

their employees.” 

Lack of training 

Social work is a constantly evolving field of professional practice. Workers need to stay current on new 

standards and policies, as well as the evolving and dynamic field of culturally based practice. Many 

executive directors, social workers and team leaders in both rural and urban agencies described the 

difficulties of accessing training that is often only available in the Lower Mainland, and were deeply 

troubled about how lack of training negatively impacts their work with families. Some interviewees also 

reported that they are invited to local ministry training events at the last moment or not at all. Smaller 

rural DAAs have even more challenges accessing training because of lack of funding, long travel times, 

and lack of staff coverage. 

Impacts on staff 

The impact of these staffing issues on staff was apparent in the interviews. Workers talked about working 

long hours, feeling stressed about workload and never being able to get caught up. Some workers 

reported that lack of access to supervision, along with turnover and lack of more experienced colleagues, 

adds to their stress levels. All of these factors combine to create enormous pressure on workers. One 

worker summed up her challenges in this way: 

“I want to be more effective but when I’m like this, how can I be effective with the families I’m 

working with? The pressure to do well, and I’m behind on paperwork … and I’m so far behind it 

weighs on my mind. I strongly believe our people come first and paperwork should come last.” 

Workers commented on how the cycle of stress and burnout leads to more stress, which can lead to 

medical leave. In turn, many agencies find it very challenging to provide staff coverage for medical leaves, 

or they must use auxiliary or float workers who are not delegated and cannot carry out all child safety 

responsibilities. As a result, the work continues to pile up, putting more stress on the remaining workers. 

Finding: Child welfare practice in DAAs is undermined by funding and 

staffing issues 

The quality of on-the-ground DAA-based child welfare practice is undermined by a lack of funding, 

inadequate staffing and challenges with workload. The challenges of DAA staff to meet the expectations 

of the communities they serve as well as comply with ministry standards are evident in social workers’ 

concerns about a lack of adequate supervision and clinical advice. 



Problems with supervision 

Clinical consultation is an important part of child welfare practice and is even more important in 

agencies using Indigenous approaches to child safety. These skills are not often taught in university based 

social work schools and are a rapidly evolving approach to social work practice. This means that it is even 

more crucial that team leaders have the time to work with social workers to develop these skills. The 

interviews for this report show that the continuous cycle of recruitment and high workloads contributes 

to insufficient quality supervision. This was evident in the reality that, while most social workers reported 

that they had daily contact with their team leaders, few team leaders had time to provide scheduled 

clinical supervision sessions. 

Less experienced social workers often turn to more senior colleagues for help, but even these supports 

are limited by workload pressures. One social worker summed up the sentiments of many interviewees 

about lack of clinical consultation with colleagues: “Even if social workers could get together and talk about 

cases, it would be more helpful as everyone would know what was going on with each caseload. There are 

hardly any team meetings.” Most team leaders confirmed that they use an “open door” approach with staff 

to provide required approvals and to respond to questions and concerns about cases. At the same time, 

team leaders are in a constant cycle of training and mentoring due to turnover of staff or because workers 

are inexperienced and require more support, and they reported that their capacity to offer one-on-one 

supervision is compromised by heavy workloads. 

Complying with standards 

Almost all executive directors readily agreed that average caseloads carried by workers were too high and 

in almost all cases exceeded the required standards. 

Because of high caseloads, social workers have difficulty 

meeting timelines set out in standards. Social workers 

repeatedly told RCY interviewers that the timelines 

required by child protection standards had to be 

negotiated depending upon workload and staffing levels. 

Travelling to remote locations, sometimes by boat or 

float plane, contacting families living in remote areas 

and completing all necessary assessments are made 

increasingly difficult when positions are vacant and staff 

are on leave. 

DAA Voices 

“The work is not about the standards, 

it’s about the kids – the work is always 

happening, but the documentation may 

be delayed.” 

“I can count on one hand the number of 

files I’ve closed in the ‘required’ 30 days.” 



No social workers or team leaders reported that they can readily meet timelines required by standards, 

although they certainly emphasized that they try to do everything they can to make sure children are safe. 

Executive directors, too, admitted that timelines are difficult to meet given the combination of factors 

such as understaffing, workload, and geography. Challenges with meeting required standards are evident 

in the number of child safety incidents open beyond the required timelines (see below). 

Figure 7: Open Incidents* By Days Open, Dec. 31, 2016 

Social workers must complete an investigation or a family development response within either 30 or 

45 days of receipt of a report of a child safety concern. The data in the following table was provided by 

MCFD and shows the number of DAA child safety incidents open on Dec. 31, 2016. As the table shows, 

there were 1,266 incidents open at this time (71.5% of open incidents) for more than 90 days. 

Table X: Open Child Protection Incidents by Days Open, Dec. 31, 2016 

Days open Number % 

30 or fewer 162 9.2 

31 to 90 342 19.3 

91 to 180 307 17.3 

181 to 365 378 21.4 

366 to 732 184 10.4 

More than 732 397 22.4 

Total Open Incidents 1,770 100 

Source: MCFD 

*Social workers screen all reported child safety concerns to determine whether the report requires a 

protection or non-protection response. If a report is deemed to require a protection response, the 

assessment phase must be completed within 30 days of receiving a report. This time line can be 

extended with the supervisor’s approval. If the incident is deemed to require a family development 

response, a family plan is developed with 15 days of completing the assessment. 

Other work-related tasks can also contribute to heavy workloads. Some social workers, for example, 

described participating in agency fund-raising activities to support children in care and youth who are 

about to transition out of care; child protection social workers reported covering for absent administrative 

staff or guardianship or resource workers. 



Impacts of child welfare practice: lack of appropriate and available 

resources 

Social workers and team leaders alike often mentioned the issue of insufficient support services in their 

communities, including mental health services and respite and foster placements for children in their 

care. In fact, the shortage of foster homes was one of the most often-reported work stressors. The lack of 

equity in the funding for informal care arrangements was also reported to be a barrier to the recruitment 

and retention of respite care homes. The need to respond immediately to child safety reports can limit 

workers’ ability to respond to other pressing child welfare matters. Guardianship responsibilities such as 

visiting with children in care or with foster parents can be pushed aside, resulting in fewer supports for 

these children and lack of both oversight of, and support for, foster parents. 

Some agencies reported that they simply don’t have the funding that would help retain foster homes, and 

that resources to support DAA foster families are not as readily available as they are for MCFD foster 

homes. Many agencies also worried about the lack of funding to train foster parents, particularly for 

culturally based training. They also emphasized that this training must be nation-specific, and designed 

and delivered by the agency and community. Despite these challenges, social workers said they continue 

to do what they can to find family members who can take in children when child safety issues arise. 

Lack of CYMH and other services 

Social workers expressed deep concerns about the lack of CYMH services in their regions. As one 

worker said, “We can’t get CYMH services for our youth; either [the youth] are too young or they don’t 

qualify or we can’t get hold of CYMH services.” Another noted that CYMH had prohibitively long wait 

times for accessing services or “… youth were turned down because they had to deal with other issues first 

e.g. alcohol and drug use].” One worker described a commonly noted problem with lack of resources in 

small communities: 

“There are three [mental health] counsellors in town 

who are supposed to be dealing with youth. Not one of 

them is a female. And that’s a huge barrier, because we 

have these young girls that are cutting, and a lot of it is 

related to abuse at the hands of a man. How are they 

going to feel going to a man and talking about this stuff? 

So we’ve got kids that are screaming for help.” 

DAA Voices 

“If we want to support families, we have no 

money to do so. Even providing them with 

a swim pass or giving them food – it’s only 

for kids who are in care.” 

“We’d love to be able to offer an intensive 

parent support service that’s an in-homebased 

kind of service that’s highly tailored 

to individual needs and is not time-limited.” 

Many interviewees confirmed the CHRT findings that 

DAAs lack sufficient resources to provide adequate 

prevention and early intervention programs, including 

parenting programs and early childhood education supports such as daycare. For small agencies, the 

challenges are even greater because of a lack of funding to cover basic supports. While a few agencies have 

been funded by MCFD to provide CYMH services, many are not. Compared to DAAs located in large 

urban centres, smaller, more remotely located agencies were more likely to report that family and child 

services are often limited in their local area. This lack of services in small communities make it much more 

difficult for parents to access support services that could help them keep their children out of care. 



Finding: The capacity of DAAs to offer culturally based prevention 

services is limited by staffing and funding issues 

The CFCS Act identifies the family as the best environment for children and, where needed, section 5 of 

the Act gives an MCFD Director the power to engage a range of services for families to prevent children 

from coming into care. The preservation of a child’s positive Indigenous identity is also a stated goal in 

the CFCS Act, and DAAs are committed to achieving this goal. However, current funding and staffing 

issues present insurmountable barriers to meeting the requirements of legislation and also offer culturally 

based prevention services. This is particularly the case for smaller and/or more remotely located agencies. 

Interviewees for this report 

confirmed what numerous reports 

and rulings have already found: 

that a huge gap exists between 

the services agencies can offer, 

and what programs and supports 

they need to keep children out of 

care. Almost all agencies identified 

both community level services 

and intense family preservation 8 

work as key to addressing the 

historical effects of colonialism, 

and they stressed that prevention 

services for Indigenous families 

must be culturally based to be 

most effective. 

The goals of culturally based 

services include supporting 

and fostering a child’s positive 

Indigenous identity, and 

enhancing family and community 

strengths and healing through 

programs that involve community 

participation and control (e.g. 

naming ceremonies, homecoming 

ceremonies, puberty rights). 

DAA workers described schoolbased 

programs, early childhood 

education, parenting programs 

and more supports for parents 

What are culturally based practices? 

Culturally based practices focus on enhancing a child’s 

Indigenous identity, culture and heritage. These practices enrich 

community strengths and healing, often through programs that 

involve community participation and control. In the absence 

of funding to work at the community level, Indigenous child 

welfare organizations have created a range of initiatives to 

support cultural connections and positive cultural identity for 

children in care. Some of these initiatives include: 

• Cultural plans: these plans go beyond MCFD requirements 

for care planning and take into consideration how children’s 

connections with birth families and communities can be 

maintained from the first contact with the child welfare system. 

• Life books that record memories and key life events as children 

and youth in care move to different placements. These books 

might include photos of birth families and siblings, information 

about home communities, nations and language. 

• Materials on cultural traditions and teachings specific to a 

child’s community. 

• Welcome home feasts and celebrations for children in care 

from around the province when returning to home territories. 

• Involving children in care in cultural events and teachings, 

including culture camps. 

• Where funding is available, Indigenous child welfare agencies 

will offer services such as family preservation workers 

who help keep children and youth connected to home 

communities and birth families 

8 Family preservation work focuses on keeping families together and strengthening children’s positive sense of self 

and belonging. This work can include prevention, early intervention, and reunification services. It acknowledges the 

importance of tradition, customs, relationship with the land and language, along with the role of elders, extended 

family and tribal relations. 



who want to address domestic violence and/or substance use issues as essential to preventing children 

from coming into care. 

One executive director reminded interviewers why culturally based services should not just focus on 

individual parents and children, but must also address the needs of a community: 

“Certainly over the past couple of years we’ve definitely been able to establish more comprehensive ways 

of growing together. I call it growing together because as [our First Nation] we never lose sight of each 

other, that we’re living together from birth to death.” 

Many interviewees reported that working in a culturally based manner relies on relational forms of 

practice that include extended family members and community. Workers must have the time to get 

to know families and communities, including bands, because bands have so much to offer in terms of 

knowledge of families. One worker reported that “you need to be present in communities and develop trust.” 

Another worker said it is important to make the time to do this work, especially at places such as schools 

where they can normalize the presence of social workers. Most team leaders described extensive efforts to 

attend community events to get to know people in the communities they serve. 

Workers also described how getting to know families 

in a deeper way helps acknowledge and address the 

historical effects of colonization. Interviewees resisted the 

“deficit-based” and reactive approach to parenting often 

taken by mainstream child welfare services that focuses 

too much on what is going wrong for families. Deficitbased 

approaches can also blame parents for structural 

issues beyond their individual control such as poverty, 

poor housing, racism and multi-generational impacts of 

colonialism. At the same time, respondents insisted that 

social workers must not misrepresent Indigenous families 

as helpless victims; instead, they spoke about appreciating 

the strengths families and communities have developed to 

cope with structural inequalities. 

DAA Voice 

“Provincially, there needs to be 

acknowledgement about working with 

Aboriginal families and extended families 

and communities. It takes more time to do 

the same thing than if you’re working with 

a local nuclear family. It takes more time 

to build the relationships, the one-on-one 

relationships with the parents or with the 

youth, but also the bigger relationships 

with extended family, community, the 

territory. So it’s time-intensive. And there 

needs to be recognition [of that].” 

Executive directors almost universally agreed that family preservation work needs to mitigate risk but must 

also build on the strengths that families and communities already have. But, as many pointed out, strengthsbased 

family preservation work takes time and requires that social workers are available to families. 

Social workers described the unique time commitments that working with Indigenous families and 

communities requires, and one described the impacts of colonialism on Indigenous families in the 

following terms: “Families have been colonized, invaded, murdered, assimilated and it’s as raw as it was 

15 years ago.” This worker described how she “walks softly” with families to address these issues. 

Several workers commented that one of the original intentions of AOPSI was to acknowledge and 

support the unique time commitments required for working with Indigenous families. 



Promising Practices: Integrating Traditional Practices into Health and Wellness Counselling 

One agency reported working within a cultural framework to integrate traditional practices into its 

assessment and treatment services. Staff members receive training on the unique cultures, dialects 

and histories of each of the nations served by the DAA, in order to better understand the potential 

effects of harmful factors in a child or youth’s environment. In particular, the agency’s Intensive 

Family Preservation Service program offers crisis intervention and family counselling designed to keep 

children and families safe and prevent unnecessary out-of-home placement of children. 

This program was designed specifically for families with children or youth who are at imminent risk 

of placement outside the home. Services typically last for four weeks and clinicians spend eight to 

10 hours per week working with a family, with extended hours available if needed. The program is 

tailored to each family’s unique needs and provides opportunities to learn new skills (e.g., emotion 

management or enhanced communication skills), as well as offering additional supports such as 

connection with other resources, positive parenting skills, and relapse prevention strategies. 

Promising Practices: Creating Family-Based, Community-Based Solutions to Child Safety 

“It is possible to deliver child welfare services in a better and more creative way.” 

During the interviews conducted for this report, an executive director of a DAA with full child 

protection delegation told a story that illustrates the depth and complexity of the work this DAA 

undertakes to keep Indigenous children and youth connected to their communities. 

In this example, the agency received several child safety reports indicating that a group of siblings 

from one family might be living in unsafe conditions. A typical response to these situations is to 

investigate safety reports, possibly resulting in removal of children from their family home and 

placing them in temporary foster care. In many cases, Indigenous children end up in non-Indigenous 

homes without sufficient connection to their families and their communities. These moves can initiate 

a tragic cycle of loss, both of connection to family and of positive cultural identity. 

In this case, DAA child protection workers chose to collaborate with local nations to find extended 

family members who could care for these children, rather than putting them into government 

care in non-Indigenous foster homes. To achieve this goal, DAA social workers hosted large family 

circles. These circles brought together family, extended family and members of the community in 

a supportive environment to solve problems, and to work together to develop Care Plans that help 

maintain a child’s connection to family, culture and community. Family circles are built on traditional 

values that recognize the importance of extended family and the larger community in addressing the 

needs of children. 

Because of the discussions that took place in the family circles, relatives agreed to move into the 

family home with the children. The parents agreed to stay elsewhere while they addressed their own 

traumatic past experiences and developed new parenting skills. Other members of the children’s 

extended family agreed to share in the care of the children. 

These alternative arrangements were possible because of the DAA’s good relations with local nations, 

and because of the multi-faceted programs and skilled staff at this DAA. 



Interviewees reported that culture is 

an integral foundation of the DAA 

service delivery model and is not a 

discrete or time-limited intervention. 

One interviewee described how 

MCFD child apprehensions are 

sometimes done without adequate 

culturally based care planning and 

without consideration of family 

and community connections, 

consultation or consideration: 

“One of the things I think would 

be crucial for young people in 

care, is that the ministry needs 

to take more accountability 

and responsibility for these 

Aboriginal children they removed 

when they were little and have 

them in care for years and 

years and years, many of them 

bouncing around with very little 

culture connections and family 

connections. And then by the 

time our agency gets these kids, 

all we get is the foster parent 

money. That’s not good. That’s 

not showing any caring for the 

kids. A lot of these kids are not 

in school. They have all kinds of 

learning deficits. They have all 

kinds of behavioural problems. 

And then they [MCFD] dump 

them on the agencies with just 

the foster parent money.” 

Interviewees emphasized the 

importance of supporting the 

development of positive Indigenous 

identities for children and youth, 

but they worried that lack of 

resources made it difficult to offer 

these supports. 

DAA Voices 

“As a DAA, we say we work in a different and a better way. With 

one heart and one mind. Working together. I feel like this agency 

is not at that point as a whole team. We are fragmented. I don’t 

know if it’s because of all the changes, but I’m hoping that, once 

things are settled, it will go back to where I feel supported and 

where I’m a valuable employee. We’re always under pressure. 

‘You need to be doing the care, safety plan, vulnerability 

assessment.’ But I’m out there talking to the families. This is what 

we’ve always said; our people come first. This is how we work in 

a better and different way. We hold more family meetings and 

Indigenous families are large. Along with that there comes lots of 

stuff. It’s different than the way MCFD works.” 

“We have a system where it’s finally coming full circle, what I mean 

is we have different programs that are set in place that allow us to 

offer services for parents whose [children] don’t need care, but need 

extra support. Maybe it’s just a parent group. Maybe it’s just a 

young mom needing to go to a parent group and be role modelled 

by others. So we have programs for the early years.” 

“We want to work in a different way than MCFD. So we are always 

thinking outside the box. Trying to listen to families and bring back 

to the team leader and say ‘this is what families are willing to do 

and we have to have something we are willing to do.’” 

“One of the resource homes wanted to get some tapes of their 

child in care’s native tongue for her to listen to and the social 

worker was able to connect them with a family member who 

recorded not only words, but put the words into phrases and then 

explained them in English so that the child would understand 

where the words came from and how they were used. There was 

also a handout so that the child could see what the words looked 

like on paper.” 

I think that there needs to be a specific budget line for culture. You 

know, it’s not something that we just do as an add on; it’s who 

we are and how we live and needs to be embedded throughout 

everything and not just be a milestone [in care planning].” 

“I would like to be able to offer ongoing cultural workshops for 

children and youth. I’m not visualizing getting together and 

having a workshop to make drums. I’m visualizing having kids 

going out on the land with elders and learning about traditional 

medicines … those sorts of grassroots activities.” 



Some agencies resisted pan-Indigenous approaches that do not sufficiently acknowledge and appreciate 

the diversity of Indigenous cultures. They emphasized that individual nations have their own traditions 

and approaches to child well-being that must be integrated into their work. As one said: “I think that 

there needs to be more ability to meet the unique needs of each individual nation and the territory they’re in.” 

Some executive directors noted that MCFD’s ASI funding had been helpful for establishing more 

culturally based prevention programs, including hiring family cultural connections workers. But ASI 

is time-limited and it continues to be difficult for the agency to keep good people because “there’s no 

guarantee for the work from year-to-year.” 

Respondents astutely pointed out that the solution was not to create parity with MCFD programs, 

but to move all parties to a preventative model of child welfare practice. They emphasized that family 

preservation work is already helping to keep children out of care and has ultimately saved the ministry 

money both in the short- and long-term. 

Interviewees suggested that DAAs need more resources to support the integration of traditional healing 

practices, cultural connections and language supports into child safety and guardianship work, including 

ceremonies such as healing circles, elder visits and language programs. In this vein, some agencies reported 

having elders on staff to support parents. One said: “We do ceremonies for all kinds of events – coming of age, 

leaving care, and as part of permanency plans. We do a lot of ceremony and it makes a difference.” 

Several workers described the benefits of 

having elder-led practices that support not 

just families who are struggling, but also the 

workers on their teams. One worker reminded 

the interviewer that elder-based programs are 

preventative: “We need the resources for working 

with families as things are happening rather than 

taking care of the aftermath of it all.” A team 

leader echoed this concern: “There needs to 

be more in communities to focus on prevention 

including role models and positive mentorship 

for youth … we need preventative work to break 

the cycle.” Another executive director expressed 

hopes for funding to support custom adoption: 

Promising Practices: Indigenous Cultural 

Safety in Child Welfare 

The San’yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training 

Program was developed by the Provincial Health 

Services Authority (PHSA) Aboriginal Health 

Program. One of the training programs offered 

by San’yas is the core Indigenous Cultural Safety 

Program – Child Welfare for Non-Aboriginal Child 

Welfare Professionals. This program has a specific 

focus on child welfare issues for professionals 

working with Indigenous children and is intended as 

introductory training for social workers and others. 

“Instead of bringing children into care, we would be applying the cultural practices of custom adoption and 

have that as a strong culture piece. But we need funding for that, and I want INAC to fund that.” Some 

agencies receive MCFD funding for elder-led programs, but most do not. 

Many executive directors reported that MCFD training does not support culturally based work. Instead, 

they suggested that training programs need to occur in their communities and with a broad range of 

partners (e.g. elders, staff): 

“We want to bring the training to [our community] so we can train the family care workers in the 

communities, and the family preservation workers at our agency, and the health workers, and have 

everybody on the same page. But again, it costs thousands of dollars to bring someone in and there’s no 

money for that.” 



Workers talked about the challenges of having to accommodate policies from the dominant society 

into working with Indigenous families. One social worker reported that her clients face unique 

challenges with family courts: “[Parents] are already in a bad place and they have to go to court and tell 

everyone they are in a bad place. It’s very demeaning and, from a cultural perspective, that’s not appropriate. 

I think this needs to change.” 

As workers noted, attending court 

can be traumatic for families and 

usually does little to help increase 

child safety. Court attendance can 

include extended family members 

and courts are not necessarily set up 

to accommodate Indigenous family 

structures: “It’s not just two parties 

when we go to court. There’s the agency, 

there’s the family, mom and dad, aunts, 

bands for mom, bands for dad and 

there may be other parties. It adds to the 

complexity because there are all these 

parties to the proceedings.” 

Another worker offered a cultural 

critique of the assessment tools she 

must use in her work: 

“SDM [Structured Decision 

Making] 9 tools aren’t calibrated to 

identify real risk. The tools don’t 

reflect real risk for families and 

don’t help identify safety areas that 

workers need to work on … The 

SDM tools don’t ‘talk about history’ 

in terms of what works and what 

doesn’t, how the family has grown/ 

increased resilience … If I did a 

vulnerability assessment on myself, 

I would be rated high. Sometimes 

history can raise risk level and this 

makes it not culturally appropriate.” 

MCFD’s SDM tools were noted by 

many interviewees to be frustrating: 

“The Structured Decision Making tools 

DAA Voices 

“There’s just all kinds of gaps in service that we’d like to address 

if we had the funding. You know, even getting kids home for 

cultural events and activities. Our staff fundraised to pay for 

our culture camp every year, which has gotten really huge and 

continues to grow. We don’t just restrict it to kids who are in our 

care, but we open it up to their families who live in community 

because that’s the purpose of the camp, is for kids to come 

home. We opened it up to kids who have been adopted out, 

and we want them to maintain contact and we want them to 

come back. And, of course, there’s no funding for any of this, 

so our staff are busy fundraising all year so we can provide that 

service to the families and not just to kids.” 

“There’s very little dollars for culture. It’s trying to deal with 

crisis management all the time and not having the luxury of 

saying, okay we’re going to have ROOTS workers or we’re going 

to have smaller caseloads so our social workers can go home – 

and take the kids more to community.” 

“I know that for a while we were offering Active Parenting – it’s 

a great program, but it wasn’t relevant for our folks. When you 

look at the videos they’re white middle class people sitting in 

their white middle-class homes, and our parents can’t relate 

to that stuff at all. We need the resources to offer a traditional 

parenting program.” 

“The culture permanency planning team we have funded 

through the ASI dollars is an example of working the right way 

because we’re getting a lot of kids reunited to community, and 

reconnecting with their families and we can use more out-ofcare 

options. So that’s how we get the kids back connected.” 

“Right now the funding models [both MCFD and INAC] are 

based on what provincial practice is … it doesn’t look at 

what is the best interest of the child … it [funding] should be 

more holistic … for example, the intensive family preservation 

programs … .” 

9 Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools are used in the MCFD child protection response model to assess areas of 

concern in a systematic and standardized manner. See MCFD (2015) for more information. 



obviously don’t fit from a First Nations 

perspective. They put First Nations people at 

higher risk on the scoring.” Some C6 agencies 

described using a combination of ministry 

assessment tools and Signs of Safety (see 

text box), an alternate and strengths-based 

approach to risk assessment. 

Indigenous staff 

Workers and executive directors alike 

identified the availability of fully trained and 

delegated Indigenous staff as inextricably 

intertwined with culturally appropriate 

practice. One executive director described 

the importance of having Indigenous staff: 

“… there’s a perception on the part of the 

client that the worker that they’re engaged 

with is going to recognize that they come 

from the same history and that they will 

truly understand how important it is for 

them to be safe within the child welfare 

system.” 

Another worker linked the need for 

Indigenous staff to the type and complexity 

of work required by DAAs: 

Promising Practices: Signs of Safety 

The Signs of Safety approach was created over a 

number of years in Western Australia, as a result of 

collaboration between more than 150 child welfare 

front-line practitioners. Created by Andrew Turnell 

and Steve Edwards, Signs of Safety takes a strengthsbased 

approach to child protection work and allows 

front-line social workers to build partnerships with 

parents and children during child abuse investigations, 

in order to improve the child’s situation, while still 

dealing effectively with immediate child protection 

issues (Signs of Safety, 2015). 

Three core principles at the foundation of the 

Signs of Safety framework are: constructive working 

relationships, critical thinking and using first-hand 

experiences to produce realistic guidelines for use 

in everyday practice (Government of Western 

Australia, 2011). 

Since working with Signs of Safety, agencies in Alberta 

have seen improvements in the morale and work 

satisfaction of child welfare social workers, increases in 

family satisfaction with services, and reductions in the 

number of children who enter the care system (Alberta 

Human Services, 2016). 

“We want this agency to be staffed by Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people in general have experienced 

many issues. The ones that are going to work here are resilient and they work to a very high standard 

in their community. It’s not the same as MCFD standards. They may not get the safety assessment done 

on time because they had to go see someone else who is feeling suicidal. Because they have experienced 

trauma, they have health issues. There’s also lots going on in the community like graduations and 

awards days and everyone goes to the funerals … so people who work here attend these events to build 

community relationships.” 

Findings from the interviews show that DAAs struggle to hire Indigenous staff and that, in some cases, 

DAAs are primarily staffed by non-Indigenous individuals. Sometimes families who want to work with 

an Indigenous staff member must wait longer for services. Executive directors also noted that it can be 

difficult to hire fully delegated Indigenous staff when wages and benefits are better at the ministry. 



Impacts on families 

Agencies reported that funding and practice issues create a myriad of effects on families: 

“All of these shortages in staffing significantly impact the community, significantly impact the ability for 

families to stay together and therefore placements to be maintained.” 

The lack of consistency in how DAAs are 

funded across the province means families 

get different treatment depending on where 

they live in B.C. Said one worker: “We have 

families who come from one city and who get 

X, Y and Z for services and they come out here 

[our city] and they get nothing.” 

Many respondents confirmed what the 

CHRT found – that the lack of support 

services for families results in children staying 

in care longer than necessary. 

DAA Voices 

“Families don’t get the up-front support so new incidents 

occur which further contributes to heavy workload.” 

“We have clients calling and saying ‘my worker never 

calls me back’ or not knowing who their worker is.” 

“Being generalist – my child service and less urgent 

cases fall to wayside due to other priorities – care plans 

are not up to date and I don’t see children as often as 

I should.” 

The realities of workload and travel mean 

that families do not always get the service 

they need to ensure child safety. Workers 

again used terms like “putting out fires” 

and “emergency management” to describe 

“I like things to be successful and some families take 

more time than others but it’s a rush because of time 

limits and lack of staffing – it makes our caseloads 

overwhelming.” 

their practice with families. Generalist social workers (carrying both child protection and guardianship 

responsibilities) were pointed in their comments about what falls to the wayside when workload is high, 

and others talked about how workload impacts social work practice. Some workers also noted that they 

get less time to spend with children in care. In turn, children and youth in care do not get the skills and 

resources they need to be successful in the long-term. Because many workers spend the majority of their 

time reacting to crises, these pressures leave little time to work with families on a one-to-one basis. Others 

talked about “letting families down” because they cannot spend more time with them. 

One interviewee for this report spoke about the positive impact their Indigenous agency staff have in 

helping communities to heal from residential school trauma. Many of the psychologists, counsellors, and 

support workers hired by the DAA have experienced residential schools themselves and are able to share in 

the healing journeys of the families they are working with. This hard work on the part of the agency was 

directly linked to a decrease in the number of children in care: “I think that’s one of the reasons why … the 

numbers of our children in care kept on going down, and down, and down … all those services for our families.” 

Many workers emphasized that despite these challenges, they still enjoy working with families and that 

“kids always come first” regardless of other priorities. The interviews also highlighted the passion that 

many workers and executive directors have for their work, particularly in Indigenous communities where 

some are able to work in a culturally based way to support families. Many workers expressed the feeling 

that solutions to these challenges are possible and that, with more staff at the front line, individual 

workers could do more in-depth work that would keep families together. 


Conclusion 

Conclusion 

Numerous reports during the past 15 years have drawn similar conclusions to this one – that both the 

planning and the funding for Indigenous child welfare are woefully inadequate. However, this report 

offers one of the few explorations of how these issues impact front-line staffing and service delivery in 

DAAs and what needs to be done to address these issues. 

The report confirms what the CHRT found – that the current funding structure leaves DAAs struggling 

to cover operational costs including salaries and benefits, as well as culturally based services. In addition, 

the funding structures do not account for the need to address the intergenerational effects of egregious 

Canadian policies such as the Indian Residential School system. Prevention through strengthening 

community and family supports is a vital and urgent part of Indigenous child welfare services, given the 

well-documented intergenerational effects of residential schools on healthy family functioning. 

In fact, the 2015 reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada recognized that the 

over-representation of Indigenous children in contemporary child welfare systems is directly connected 

to the unaddressed harmful legacy of residential schools. 

More than 10 years ago, the Hon. Ted Hughes, and, more recently, Grand Chief Ed John, described 

the historical conditions that led to the over-representation of Indigenous children in care, with both 

recognizing that addressing social conditions such as poverty, poor housing and economic opportunities 

are crucial to creating strong communities that can keep children safe (Hughes, 2006; John, 2016). 

In addition to problems with INAC funding, this report finds that how MCFD plans for and funds DAAs 

remains inadequate, as found in earlier reports released by this Office. MCFD documents reveal that an 

overall assessment of the needs of Indigenous families and children, combined with a plan for meeting 

those needs, remains unaddressed in B.C. Recent commitments made by the ministry to implement the 

comprehensive recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John’s report and a significant enhancement to the 

budget, including for Indigenous child welfare services, are heartening. But those recommendations have 

yet to be implemented and may take several years. 

This report also finds that how DAAs are funded in B.C. is unduly complex and spans multiple jurisdictions, 

including the federal and provincial governments, and then across MCFD regions. The majority of DAAs 

receive some or all of their funding from the federal government, but many also receive funding through a 

patchwork of MCFD contracts that vary from agency to agency and region to region. This leaves DAA staff 

in the position of navigating and reconciling the requirements of two levels of government. 

MCFD funding to the DAAs remains piecemeal and funding contracts have no overriding logic or 

consistency. This lack of planning creates a fragmented ministry approach to the DAAs that results in 

short-term and proposal-driven funding, leaving agencies without the necessary long-term commitments 

that would assist the DAAs in addressing key issues such as recruitment and retention of qualified staff. 

Although MCFD professes to a “partnership” relationship with DAAs, this review finds that DAAs are still 

viewed as contractors who must bid against each other for essential funding for children and families. Added 

to this is the reality that relationships remain strained between DAAs and some of their local counterparts at 

MCFD, as well as with the ministry’s provincial office. These strained relationships have direct impacts on 

staffing issues, making it more difficult to advocate for the needs of families. 


Conclusion 

What this report also finds is that funding issues stemming from both INAC and MCFD negatively 

impact the capacity of front-line social workers in the DAAs to carry out their responsibilities in an 

effective and culturally based manner. Indeed, given the lack of planning for and assessment of the needs 

of Indigenous families in B.C., the funding provided by both INAC and MCFD does not address the 

needs of these children and families in a way that is equivalent to its commitments to other children. But 

even parity with MCFD services would not necessarily address the needs of Indigenous children. As the 

findings of numerous reports from this Office show, children and youth in MCFD’s care do not fare as 

well as their peers in the general population and Indigenous children in care do not fare as well as non- 

Indigenous children in care. 

Despite the passage of 10 years, this review shows that DAAs still struggle with needs identified by 

Hughes in 2006, including basic operational costs, lack of access to training, remoteness, small size 

and problems with Internet access. Added to this are issues with staffing vacancies that contribute to 

workload, problems with recruitment and retention and lack of wage and benefits parity with MCFD 

social workers. All of these issues combine to make it difficult to comply with standards. These findings 

echo the findings in the Representative’s 2015 report on staffing issues in MCFD. The DAAs, however, 

do not have an infrastructure that comes anywhere near the size of MCFD’s, meaning challenges with 

staffing have an even bigger impact on both employees and the families they serve. 

The CHRT ruling reminds us that Canada is a party to important international legal instruments 

including the International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 

(UNCRC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada has 

also signalled that compliance with these legal instruments, and the UNCRC in particular, cuts across 

all governments at every level in Canada (Parliament of Canada, N.D.). The UNCRC’s international 

monitoring body has stressed the importance of culturally appropriate services for Indigenous children 

(CHRT 2, 2016, p. 158). This monitoring body has also expressed concerns about the continuing high 

number of removals of Indigenous children from their families and communities and has stressed the 

importance of ensuring that services to Indigenous children are comparable in quality and accessibility to 

the services available to other children (CHRT2, 2016, p. 159). 

Canada’s recent adoption of the UNDRIP reinforces its obligations at every level to improve the wellbeing 

of Indigenous Canadians, particularly through Article 2, which stresses the equality of Indigenous 

peoples with all others in Canada. What respondents in this review told the Representative is that 

addressing these larger social conditions must go hand-in-hand with well-designed and well-supported 

culturally based services. These services are an essential part of addressing some of the intergenerational 

harms of residential schools and the damage done to communities by the process of removing children 

from their homes. However, for most DAAs, their capacity to offer prevention services, including 

culturally based family preservation work, is severely limited. 

It was also abundantly clear that many DAA staff interviewed for this report were guided in their 

work by value-based motivations such as healing, reconciliation, justice, family and community. These 

respondents rejected the reactive and risk management-oriented approaches of mainstream child welfare, 

insisting instead on a supportive and caring approach that is more in line with Indigenous world views 

and values. They described the difficulties with using ministry assessment tools that tend to individualize 

problems and to push to the background the historical and structural factors that contribute to 

Indigenous child safety issues. 


Conclusion 

In B.C., for example, the Signs of Safety approach (see text box on page 48) has not been universally 

adopted, but a number of DAAs have integrated the principles of Signs of Safety into their practice. The 

collaborative, strengths-based method of addressing family needs during the child protection process 

advocated by Signs of Safety mirrors the relationship-building approach to service that DAA workers believe 

is vital. However, with a lack of financial and policy support for the program from MCFD, social workers 

from DAAs who wish to be trained in the Signs of Safety approach must use their own initiative in order to 

integrate the principles into their practice. 

Many DAA front-line workers spend a significant amount of time learning about the communities they 

serve, developing relationships with family members and the broader community, and attending cultural 

events and ceremonies. The time needed to ensure trust and support in the community is considerable. 

When time and resources are limited, interactions with the community and preventative culturally based 

practice can take a back seat behind dealing with incoming child welfare reports. The effect of these 

challenges is to create an unacceptable level of risk for families and children in everyday social work 

practice. These risks can be successfully mitigated, however, by appropriate resourcing, training and other 

supports for Indigenous child welfare. More than this, the cultural needs of Indigenous children and 

youth need to be woven into the fabric of service delivery and resourced accordingly. 

Despite these limitations, participants in this review bore witness to the numerous successes they have 

working with families and keeping children out of care and in their communities. The challenges for 

these participants were not so much that their approaches do not work, but that the daily pressures of 

their work lives prevents them from doing more of what works. 

Taken together, the findings of this report highlight issues of great concern for the delivery of child 

welfare services to Indigenous children, youth and families in B.C. – issues that cannot be accepted as 

“just the way it is.” Change and improvement are not only possible; they are imperative if we are to 

live up to our responsibility as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

Addressing the current situation will take commitment and action: INAC must remedy its funding 

flaws to Indigenous child welfare services; planning in B.C. for Indigenous child welfare must address 

the distinct needs and circumstances of children, families and their communities; and funding by 

both levels of government must be equitable and clear, and must take into account needs based on the 

intergenerational effects of colonialism. It is through these actions that staff in DAAs will better be able to 

support and strengthen Indigenous families, resulting in fewer Indigenous children coming into care. 


Acronyms 

Acronyms 

AOPSI: 

Aboriginal Operational and Practices Standards and Indicators 

AP&P: 

ASI: 

BCGEU: 

CCO: 

CFCS Act: 

CHRT: 

CYMH: 

DAA: 

EPFA: 

Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework 

Aboriginal Service Innovations 

B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union 

Continuing Custody Order 

Child, Family and Community Service Act (B.C.) 

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 

Child and Youth Mental Health Services 

Delegated Aboriginal Agency 

Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach 

FNC&FCS: First Nations Child & Family Caring Society 

FNCFS: 

FNLC: 

ICM: 

INAC: 

MCFD: 

OCYA: 

PHSA: 

RCY: 

TRC: 

UDHR: 

UNCRC: 

UNDRIP: 

First Nations Child and Family Services Program (INAC) 

First Nations Leadership Council 

Integrated Case Management system 

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 

Ministry of Children and Family Development 

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate (Alberta) 

Provincial Health Services Authority 

Representative for Children and Youth (B.C.) 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 

United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Persons 


Glossary 

Glossary 

C3 Delegation: Category three (C3) delegation allows social workers to provide voluntary services and 

oversee the recruitment and retention of residential resources (foster homes). It includes authority to 

provide support services for families, voluntary care agreements and special needs agreements and to 

establish residential resources for children in care. 

C4 Delegation: Category four (C4) delegation includes all the legal authority in C3 plus additional 

responsibilities to carry out guardianship duties for children and youth in continuing custody. These 

include permanency planning, transitions out of care and managing Comprehensive Plans of Care 

(CPOCs). 

C6 Delegation: Category six (C6) delegation is the highest level of delegation and includes all the legal 

responsibilities of C3 and C4 plus full authority for child protection duties, including investigation of 

child abuse or neglect reports, placing children in care, obtaining court orders and developing safety 

plans. 

Caseload: The actual number of active files or cases assigned to a social worker at a given point in time. 

Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCS Act): Legislation enacted in 1996 governing child 

protection in British Columbia. 

Child Protection Social Worker: A child protection social worker collects information, responds to 

child protection reports, conducts FDRs and investigations, removes children if needed, attends court, 

works with families, and plans for the return of children or for continuing custody. 

Child or Youth in Care: A child or youth who is in the custody, care or guardianship of a Director 

(CFCS Act) or the Director of Adoption (Adoption Act). 

Continuing Custody Order (CCO): A child or youth who is under a Continuing Custody Order is 

under the permanent guardianship of the Director of MCFD (or their delegates) and the Public Trustee 

becomes the guardian of the estate of the child or youth. 

Culturally Based: Culturally based practices focus on enhancing a child’s Indigenous identity, culture 

and heritage. These practices enhance community strengths and healing often through programs that 

involve community participation and control. 

Delegated Aboriginal Agency (DAA): Through delegation agreements, the Provincial Director of Child 

Welfare gives authority to Aboriginal agencies, and their employees, to undertake administration of all or 

parts of the CFCS Act. The amount of responsibility assumed by each agency is the result of negotiations 

between the ministry and the Aboriginal community served by the agency, and the level of delegation 

provided by the Director. 

Family Development Response (FDR): The preferred approach when an alleged incident involving 

a child/youth is of lower severity and when parents are able and willing to participate in collaborative 

assessment and planning. FDR involves family members in the response process and builds on their 

strengths in order to safely care for the child/youth. 


Glossary 

Family Preservation Services: Family preservation work focuses on keeping families together and 

strengthening children’s positive sense of self and belonging. This work can include prevention, early 

intervention and reunification services. It acknowledges the importance of tradition, customs, relationship 

with the land and language along with the role of Elders, extended family and tribal relations. 

Generalist Teams: Teams of social workers who investigate child welfare reports, are involved with 

ongoing family services and guardianship services and may assist with residential resources or adoptions. 

Guardianship Worker: A social worker who is delegated at a C4 level to provide guardianship services 

for children and youth in continuing custody, including permanency planning, transitions out of care 

and managing Comprehensive Plans of Care (CPOCs). 

Hughes Review: In 2006, the Honourable Ted Hughes conducted an independent review of B.C.’s child 

protection system. The review contained 62 recommendations for changes to the child welfare system, 

including the creation of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. 

Incident: Social workers screen all reported child safety reports to determine whether the report requires 

a protection or non-protection response. If the report requires a protection response, it becomes an 

incident. Social workers conduct an assessment of the report immediately if the child/youth appears to be 

in a life threatening or dangerous situation. In all other cases, an assessment takes place within 24 hours 

of receiving the report. 

Integrated Case Management System (ICM): Computerized system designed to assist social workers to 

record assessments and other tools completed in the course of a child protection investigation. 

Intake: A process by which child protection reports and requests for service are introduced into a ministry 

office. Child Protection Response standards provide guidelines for how these reports are to be handled. 

Investigation Response: Child protection workers use investigations to respond to screened-in child 

protection reports that meet the following criteria: the circumstances involve severe physical abuse 

or severe neglect; the parent(s) are unable or unwilling to participate in collaborative assessment and 

planning; or there is an open file on the family and at least one child/youth is out of the home for 

protection reasons. 

Jordan’s Principle: Jordan’s Principle is a federal policy developed after the 2005 death of a five-yearold 

First Nations child named Jordan Anderson, and was created to deal with jurisdictional disputes 

involving the care of Aboriginal children. Its intent is to ensure that services are provided to children 

without delay. By following the principle, the government responsible for the services first provided to a 

child pays for those services, and jurisdictional disputes can then be settled at a later date. B.C. formally 

endorsed Jordan’s Principle in 2008. 

Least disruptive measures: Measure taken by delegated social workers before considering removal of a 

child or youth from parental care. 


Glossary 

Non-Protection Response: When a report or incident of a child safety concerns is screened by a social 

worker as requiring one of the following responses: no further action, referral to community support 

services, voluntary services or youth service response. 

Protection Response: When a report or incident of a child safety concern is screened by a social worker 

as requiring one of the following responses: a Family Development Response, a youth service response 

or an investigation. This determination must be made within five calendar days after receiving the child 

safety report. 

Prior Contact Check: Carried out in the initial stages of a Child Protection Response to help identify 

immediate family members and highlight any past involvement in child protection services. 

Representative for Children and Youth: In May 2006, B.C. passed the Representative for Children and 

Youth Act, establishing the Legislative Assembly’s authority to appoint a new officer of the Legislature 

as the Representative for Children and Youth. The Representative supports young people and their 

families in dealing with the provincial child welfare system, provides oversight to this system and 

makes recommendations to improve it. The Representative is a non-partisan, independent officer of the 

Legislature, reporting directly to the Legislative Assembly. 

Service Delivery Areas (SDAs): Child welfare services are delivered by MCFD in B.C. across 13 Service 

Delivery Areas. Each SDA is further divided into Local Services Areas (LSAs). There are 47 LSAs in total. 

Sixties Scoop: The breakdown of Indigenous families was accelerated in the 1960s by the removal, 

sometimes in mass numbers, of children from their families. The term ‘Sixties Scoop’ was coined to 

describe these mass removals. Many of the ‘scoop’ children were placed with non-Indigenous carers, in 

communities that were far from their original bands or reserves. 

Structured Decision Making (SDM) Screening: The process by which social workers responding to 

child protection reports assess areas of concern systematically and in a standardized manner. 

Team Leader: A supervisor of a team of social workers. 

Voluntary Services: Preventive and support services offered to children/youth and their families on a 

voluntary basis, including: mental health, education and ancillary services; residential resources; support 

to assist in the resolution of family disputes; voluntary care agreements; and special needs agreements. 

Workload: The amount of time that must be devoted to various tasks (visiting families, interviewing 

children, completing assessment tools, documenting work processes, etc.) to respond to reports of child 

safety concerns regardless of the complexity of cases. 

Youth: A person is considered a youth under the CFCS Act if he or she is 16 years of age or older but 

younger than 19 years of age. 


Appendices 

Appendices 

Appendix 1: Demographic Information about 

Social Workers and Team Leaders 

Descriptive Information on Interviewees: Social Workers 

Social Workers 

Number 

Number of generalist workers 7 

Number of child protection workers 10 

Total number of workers 17 

Average years of experience 8.5 

Average number of years with MCFD/DAA 6.5 

Average years in current position 3 

Delegation Level 

C6 

Average number of years since C6 delegation 6.5 

Descriptive Information on Interviewees: Team Leaders 

Team Leaders 

Number/Average 

Number interviewed 11 

Average years of child welfare experience 12.5 

Average years with MCFD/DAA 12.5 

Average years as a team leader 4 

Average years with current team 2 

Delegation level 

All C6 

Descriptive Information on Executive Directors 

(Agencies with C6 Delegation) 




Average years as executive director 6 

Descriptive Information on Executive Directors (Agencies with C4 

Delegation) 




Average years as executive director 7* 

*Not all interviewees provided information. Average based on 7 respondents. 


Appendices 

Appendix 2: Information about DAAs 

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies (C6) 

Agency Name 

and Location 

Fraser Valley 

Aboriginal Child 

and Family 

Services Society 

(East Fraser) 

Knucwentwecw 

Society 

(Thompson 

Cariboo) 

Ktunaxa/ 

Kinbasket Child 

& Family Services 

(Kootenays) 

Kwumut Lelum 

Child & Family 

Services (North 

Vancouver 

Island) 

Date Operations/ 

Delegation Began 

• Initial agreement 

signed Nov. 26, 1993 


signed Oct. 13, 1995 


signed July 27, 1999 


signed Dec. 8, 1997 

Services 

Provided 

On/Off 

Reserve? 

Receives 

20-1 

Funding? 

Receives 

MCFD 

Funding? 

Affiliated 

Communities 

On/Off Yes Yes Aitchelitz Chawathil 

Cheam 

Kwantlen 

Leq’a:mel 

Popkum 

Shxw’owhamel 

Shx:wha:y Village 

Skawahlook 

Skowkale 

Skwah 

Soowahlie 

Squiala 

Sumas 

Tzeachten 

Yakweakwioose 

Yale First Nation 

On/Off Yes Yes Canim Lake 

Soda Creek 

Stswecem’c/ 

Xgat’tem 

Williams Lake 

On/Off Yes Yes Columbia Lake/ 

?Akisq’nuk 

Lower Kootenay 

Shuswap 

St. Mary’s 

Tobacco Plains 

Métis E. Kootenay 

Region 

On Yes Yes Stz’uminus 

First Nation Halalt 

Lake Cowichan 

Lyackson 

Malahat 

Nanoose 

Penelakut 

Qualicum 

Snuneymuxw 


Appendices 


Agency Name 

and Location 

Lalum’utul’ 

Smun’eem 


Services (South 

Vancouver 

Island) 

Métis Family 


Fraser) 

Nlha’7kapmx 



(Thompson 

Cariboo) 

Nuu-Chah- 

Nulth Tribal 

Council USMA 

Family and Child 


Vancouver 

Island) 

Scw’exmx 



(Thompson 

Cariboo) 




signed Jan. 22, 1993 


signed April 11, 2001 


signed Sept. 22, 1994 


signed Feb. 12, 1987 

• Received C6 

delegation in 1989 

• First Aboriginal 

agency to obtain 

C6 delegation 


signed May 31, 1994 

Services 

Provided 

On/Off 

Reserve? 

Receives 

20-1 

Funding? 

Receives 

MCFD 

Funding? 

Affiliated 

Communities 

On Yes Yes Cowichan 

Off No Yes Métis (South Fraser/ 

Simon Fraser) 

On Yes Yes Cook’s Ferry 

Kanaka Bar 

Lytton 

Nicomen 

Siska 

Skuppah 

On/Off Yes Yes Ahousat 

Ditidaht 

Ehattesaht 

Hesquiaht 

Mowachaht/ 

Muchalaht 

Hupacasath 

Nuchatlaht 

Tla-o-qui-aht 

Tseshaht 

Maa-nulth Treaty: 

Huu-ay-aht 

Ka:’yu:k’t’h’/ 

Che:K:tles7et’h 

Toquaht 

Uchucklesaht 

Ucluelet 

On Yes Yes Coldwater 

Lower Nicola 

Nooaitch 

Shackan 

Upper Nicola 


Appendices 


Agency Name 

and Location 

Secwepemc 


Services Agency 

(Thompson 

Cariboo) 

Vancouver 

Aboriginal 



(Vancouver/ 

Richmond) 




signed March 6, 2000 


signed Sept. 20, 2001 

Services 

Provided 

On/Off 

Reserve? 

Receives 

20-1 

Funding? 

Receives 

MCFD 

Funding? 

Affiliated 

Communities 

On/Off Yes Yes Adams Lake 

Bonaparte 

Kamloops 

Neskonlith 

North Thompson 

Skeetchestn 

Whispering Pines 

Off No Yes Vancouver Urban 

(Vancouver/ 

Richmond) 


Agency Name Date of Delegation 

and Location 

Ayas Men 

Men Child & 

Family Services 

(Squamish 

Nation) (Coast/ 

North Shore) 

Carrier Sekani 


(North Central) 

Gitxsan Child 

& Family 


(Northwest) 






signed June 3, 1999 

Services 

Provided 

On/Off 

Reserve? 

Receives 

20-1 

Funding? 

Receives 

MCFD 

Funding? 

Affiliated 

Communities 

On/Off Yes Yes Squamish 

On/Off Yes Yes Burns Lake 

Cheslatta 

Lake Babine 

Nadleh Whut’en 

Nee Tahi Buhn 

Skin Tyee 

Stella’ten 

Saik’uz 

Takla Lake 

Wet’suwet’en 

Yakooche 

On Yes Yes Kispiox 

Glen Vowell 

Gitsegukla 

Gitwangak 

Gitanyow 


Appendices 



and Location 

Nezul Be 

Hunuyeh Child & 


Society (North 

Central) 

NIL/TU,O Child 

& Family Services 

Society (South 

Vancouver 

Island) 

Nisga’a Child & 


(North West) 

Northwest Inter- 

Nation Family 

& Community 


(North West) 

Surrounded 

by Cedar 



Vancouver 

Island) 


signed July 31, 2002 


signed March 5, 1999 




signed Feb. 8, 1999 



Services 

Provided 

On/Off 

Reserve? 

Receives 

20-1 

Funding? 

Receives 

MCFD 

Funding? 

Affiliated 

Communities 

On Yes Yes Nak’azdli 

Tl’azt’en 

On Yes Yes Beecher Bay 

Pauquachin 

Songhees 

Tsartlip 

Tsawout 

T’sou-ke 

Tseycum 

On/Off Yes Yes Citizens of the 

Nisga’a Lisims 

Government 

including villages 

of: 

Gingolx (Kincolith) 

Gitlaxt’aamiks 

Laxgalts’ap 

Gitwinksihlkw 

On Yes Yes Gitga’at (Hartley 

Bay) 

Haisla (Kitamaat) 

Gitxaala (Kitkatla) 

Kitselas 

Kitsumkalum 

Lax-Kw’alaams 

Metlakatla 

Off No Yes Victoria Urban 


Appendices 

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies (C3) – No C3 Agencies Interviewed 


and Location 

Denisiqi 


(Thompson 

Cariboo) 

Haida Child 

& Family 


(Northwest) 

Heiltsuk Kaxla 

Society (Coast/ 

North Shore) 

K'WAK'WALAT'SI 

('Namgis) Child 

and Family 


Vancouver 

Island) 


signed June 23, 2005 




signed March 31, 

2000 



Services 

Provided 

On/Off 

Reserve? 

Receives 

20-1 

Funding? 

Receives 

MCFD 

Funding? 

Affiliated 

Communities 

On Yes Yes Alexandria 

Alexis Creek (Tsi Del 

Del) 

Anaham (Tl'etinqox) 

Nemiah (Xeni 

Gwet’in) 

Stone (Yunesit'in) 

Toosey (Tl’esqotin) 

Ulkatcho 

On Yes Yes Old Masset Village 

Council 

Skidegate Band 

On Yes Yes Heiltsuk 

On Yes No 'Namgis 

Tlowitsis- 

Mumtagalia 


References 

References 

Aboriginal Children in Care Working Group. (2015). Aboriginal children in care: Report to Canada’s 

Premiers. Ottawa, ON: Council of the Federation Secretariat. Retrieved from http:// 

canadaspremiers.ca/phocadownload/publications/aboriginal_children_in_care_report_ 

july2015.pdf 

Alberta Human Services. (2016). Child Intervention Practice Framework. Retrieved from 

http://humanservices.alberta.ca/abuse-bullying/17242.html 

Assembly of First Nations, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Development. (2000). First 

Nations Child and Family Services: Joint National Policy Review. Ottawa: Assembly of First 

Nations. Retrieved from https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/docs/FNCFCS_ 

JointPolicyReview_Final_2000.pdf 

Auditor General of B.C. (2008). Management of Aboriginal child protection services. Victoria: Auditor 

General of B.C. https://www.bcauditor.com/sites/default/files/publications/2008/report3/ 

report/management-aboriginal-child-protection-services.pdf 

Auditor General of Canada. (2011). Status report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of 

Commons: Chapter 4: Programs for First Nations on Reserve. Ottawa: Auditor-General of 

Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf 

Auditor General of Canada. (2008). Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of 

Commons: Chapter 4 – First Nations Child and Family Services Program, Indian and Northern 

Affairs. Ottawa: Auditor-General of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/ 

internet/English/parl_oag_201106_04_e_35372.html 

Bennett, K. (2015). Cultural Permanence for Indigenous Children and Youth: Reflections from a 

Delegated Aboriginal Agency in British Columbia. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(1), 

99-115. 

Bennett, M., Blackstock, C., and De La Ronde, R. (2005). A Literature Review and Annotated 

Bibliography on Aspects of Aboriginal Child Welfare in Canada. First Nations Child and Family 

Caring Society of Canada. Retrieved from https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/23. 

AboriginalCWLitReview_2ndEd-1.pdf 

Bennett, B. and Zubrzycki, J. (2003). Hearing the stories of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight 

Islander social workers: challenging and educating the system. Australian Social Work, 56(1), 

61-70. 

Blackstock, C. (2010). I Want to Grow up in my Community: A Review of the Child and 

Family Service Act. NWT Standing Committee on Social Programs Advisory Report. 

Retrieved from http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/NWT_Blackstock_ 

IWANTTOGROWUPINMYCOMMUNITY_A_REVIEW_OF_THE_CFS_ACT2010.pdf 


References 

Blackstock, C. (2008). Reconciliation Means Not Saying Sorry Twice: Lessons From Child Welfare 

in Canada. In From Truth to Reconciliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools 

(pp. 163-178). Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. 

British Columbia Government. (2014, Nov. 6). New staff, streamlined services to benefit at-risk kids. 

Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/new-staff-streamlined-services-to-benefit-at-risk-kids 

BC Statistics. (ND). British Columbia statistical profile of Aboriginal peoples 2006: Aboriginal Peoples 

compared to non-Aboriginal population. Victoria: BC Statistics. Retrieved from http://www. 

bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/AboriginalPeoples/CensusProfiles/2006Census.aspx 

British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU). (2014). Choose Children: 

A Case for Reinvesting in Child, Youth and Family Services in British Columbia. Retrieved from 

http://www.bcgeu.ca/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/BCGEU-choose-childrenreport-digital_0.pdf 

British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU). (2015). Closing the 

Circle: A Case for Reinvesting in Aboriginal Child, Youth and Family Services in British 

Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.bcgeu.ca/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/ 

Closing%20the%20Circle%20Report%20FINAL.pdf 

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. (2016). First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada 

et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) 

(2016 CHRT 2), January 26, 2016. File Number T1340/7008. Retrieved from http:// 

decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/chrt-tcdp/decisions/en/item/127700/index.do#_Toc441501140 

Cemlyn, S. (2000a). Assimilation, control, mediation or advocacy? Social work dilemmas in 

providing anti-oppressive services for Traveller children and families. Child and Family 

Social Work, 5(4), 327-41. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2206.2000.00168.x 

Cemlyn, S. (2000b). Policy and Provision by Social Services for Traveller Children and Families. Report 

on Research Study. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. 

Cemlyn, S., Greenfields, M., Burnett, S., Matthews, Z., Whitwell, C. (2009). Inequalities experienced 

by gypsy and traveller communities: A review. Manchester, UK: Equality and Human Rights 

Commission. Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publicationdownload/research-report-12-inequalities-experiences-gypsy-and-traveller-communities 

Child, Family and Community Service Act. Laws of B.C. (RSBC 1986, Chapter 46). Retrieved from 

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96046_01 

First Nations Child and Family Services Agencies Directors Forum et al. (2008). British Columbia 

First Nations Enhanced Prevention Services and Accountability Framework. Retrieved from 

http://www.fndirectorsforum.ca/downloads/bc-fn-ep-srv-model-and-accountabilityframework-final.pdf 


References 

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (FNC&FCS). (2005). Wen:de - We are 

Coming to the Light of Day. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. 

Retrieved from http://www.fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/docs/WendeReport.pdf 

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. (2016a). Federal Funding Formulas 

for First Nations Child and Family Services: 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement. Ottawa: First 

Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. 

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. (2016b). Federal Funding Formulas for 

First Nations Child and Family Services: Directive 20-1. Ottawa: First Nations Child and 

Family Caring Society of Canada. 

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. (2016c). Federal Funding Formulas for 

First Nations Child and Family Services: Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach. Ottawa: First 

Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. 

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. (2016d). Federal Funding Formulas for 

First Nations Child and Family Services: Funding Arrangements for Provinces and Territories. 

Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. Retrieved from https:// 

fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Prov%20and%20Territory%20description.pdf 

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. (2016e). Victory for First Nations Children: 

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Finds Discrimination Against First Nations Children Living 

On-Reserve. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. Retrieved 

from https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Information%20Sheet%20re%20 

CHRT%20Decision.pdf 

First Nations Leadership Council Organizations (FNLCO). (2016). Information background for ‘An 

Immediate Call to Action: Reconciliation and Self-Determination for First Nations Children, Families 

and Nations in B.C.’, May 30, 31, 2016. First Nations Leadership Council Organizations. 

First Nations Leadership Council. (2015). FNLC to Candidates in the 2015 Election. Retrieved from 

http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/C-2015August19_FNLCtoCandidates_FederalElectionQuestions_ 

FINAL.pdf 

First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2016). First Nations Peoples Language Map of British Columbia. 

Brentwood Bay, B.C.: First Peoples’ Cultural Council. Retrieved from http://maps.fpcc.ca/ 

Government of Western Australia. (2011). The Signs of Safety Child Protection Practice Framework 

(2nd edition). East Perth, Western Australia: Department for Child Protection. 

Hughes, E.N. (2006). BC children and youth review: An independent review of BC’s child protection 

system. Victoria, B.C. 

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (2016a). First Nations Child and Family 

Services. Ottawa: INAC. Retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/ 

eng/1100100035204/1100100035205 


References 

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (2016b). About British Columbia First Nations. 

Retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100021009/1314809450456 

John, E. (Grand Chief). (2016). Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification – from Root 

Causes to Root Solutions. Victoria: MCFD. Retrieved from http://fns.bc.ca/pdf/Final-Reportof-Grand-Chief-Ed-John-re-Indig-Child-Welfare-in-BC-November-2016.pdf 

Johnson, P. (1993). Native children and the child welfare system. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social 

Development in association with James Lorimer & Company. 

Kozlowski, A., Milne, L., and Vandna, S. (2014). British Columbia’s Child Welfare System. CWRP 

Information. Sheet #139E. Montreal, QC: Centre for Research on Children and Families. 

Retrieved from http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/BC_final_infosheet.pdf 

Kozlowski, A., Sinha, V., Hoey, S., and Lucas, L. (2012). First Nations Child Welfare in British 

Columbia (2011). CWRP Information Sheet #98E. Montreal, QC: McGill University, 

Centre for Research on Children and Families. Retrieved from http://cwrp.ca/infosheets/ 

first-nations-child-welfare-british-columbia 

Libesman, T. (2004). Child welfare approaches for Indigenous communities: International 

perspectives. National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues, (20). Melbourne, Australia: 

Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/ 

files/publication-documents/issues20.pdf 

Libesman, T. (2014). Decolonising Indigenous child welfare - comparative perspectives. London and 

New York: Routledge. 

Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. (2012). 2012/2013 Annual Service Plan. 

Victoria: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconcilation. 

MCFD. (2017a). Delegated Aboriginal agencies in BC. Victoria: MCFD. Retrieved from http:// 

www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/data-monitoring-quality-assurance/ 

reporting-monitoring/accountability/delegated-aboriginal-agencies 

MCFD. (2017b). 2017-2020 Multi-year action plan. Victoria: MCFD. 

MCFD. (2017c). Delegated Aboriginal Child and Family Service Agencies Status. Victoria: MCFD. 

Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/data-monitoringquality-assurance/reporting-monitoring/accountability/delegated-aboriginal-agencies 

MCFD. (2016b). Aboriginal Service Innovations. Victoria: MCFD. 

MCFD. (2016c, May 19). Independent advisors guide to improvements in child welfare. Victoria: 

Ministry of Children and Family Development. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/ 

releases/2016CFD0025-000814 


References 

MCFD. (2016d, July 8). Minister’s statement on advisory council. Victoria: Ministry of 

Children and Family Development. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/ 

releases/2016CFD0037-001248 

MCFD. (2016e). MCFD service plan: 2016/17 – 2018/19. Victoria: Ministry of Children and Family 

Development. Retrieved from http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2016/sp/pdf/ministry/cfd.pdf 

MCFD. (2016f). Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework in British Columbia: A pathway towards 

restorative policy and practice that supports and honours Aboriginal peoples’ systems of caring, 

nurturing children and resiliency. Victoria: MCFD. 

MCFD. (2016g). MCFD Estimates Binder, 2016. Provided to the Representative by MCFD. 

MCFD. (2016h). Aboriginal case practice audits. Victoria: MCFD. Retrieved from http://www2. 

gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/data-monitoring-quality-assurance/reportingmonitoring/accountability/aboriginal-case-practice-audits 

MCFD. (2016i). MCFD Corporate Data Warehouse, Data Portal. Data Retrieved October 2016. 

MCFD. (2015). Practice guidelines for using structured decision making tools. Victoria: MCFD. 

MCFD. (2005). Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators (AOPSI). Victoria: 

MCFD. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-ourgovernments/aboriginal-people/child-family-development/aopsi_practice_standards.pdf 

MCFD. (n.d.). Delegated Child & Family Service Agencies. Victoria: MCFD. Retrieved from 

http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/about_us/aboriginal/delegated/index.htm 

MCFD. (n.d.). The Delegation Process. Victoria: MCFD. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/ 

about_us/aboriginal/delegated/delegation_process.htm 

McKenzie, H.A., Varcoe, C., Browne, A.J., and Day, L. (2016). Disrupting the Continuities Among 

Residential Schools, the Sixties Scoop, and Child Welfare: An Analysis of Colonial and 

Neocolonial Discourses. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7(2). Retrieved from 

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol7/iss2/4 

Métis Nation. (n.d.). Métis Nation Citizenship. Retrieved from 

http://www.metisnation.ca/index.php/who-are-the-metis/citizenship 

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia. (2008). Management of Aboriginal Child 

Protection Services. British Columbia: Office of the Auditor General. Retrieved from 

http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/BC-management_aboriginal_cps_2008.pdf 

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate Alberta (OCYA). (2016). Voices for Change: Aboriginal 

Child Welfare in Alberta – a Special Report. Edmonton: Office of the Child and Youth 

Advocate Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.ocya.alberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ 

SpRpt_2016July_VoicesForChange_v2.pdf 


References 

Office of the Ombudsman and Child and Youth Advocate. (2010). Hand-in-hand: A Review of 

First Nations Child Welfare in New Brunswick. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick. 

Retrieved from http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/NB-handinhand_e.pdf 

Parliament of Canada. (n.d.). Implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Who’s in 

Charge Here? Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations with Respect to 

the Rights of Children. Ottawa: Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/ 

Content/SEN/Committee/381/huma/rep/rep19nov05part1-e.htm 

Pivot Legal Society. (2009). Hands tied: Child protection workers talk about working in, and leaving, 

B.C.’s child welfare system. British Columbia: Pivot Legal Society. Retrieved from 

www.pivotlegal.org/sites/pivotlegal.org/files/Pivot_HandsTied.pdf 

Plecas, R. (2015). Plecas Review, Part One: Decision Time. A review of policy, practice and legislation 

of child welfare in B.C. in relation to a judicial decision in the J.P. case. Victoria: MCFD. 

Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/family-and-social-supports/servicessupports-for-parents-with-young-children/reporting-monitoring/00-public-ministry-reports/ 

plecas-report-part-one.pdf 

Representative for Children and Youth. (2015). The Thin Front Line. Victoria, B.C.: Office of the 

Representative for Children and Youth. Retrieved from https://www.rcybc.ca/sites/default/files/ 

documents/pdf/reports_publications/rcy-thethinfrontline-oct2015-final_revised.pdf 

Representative for Children and Youth. (2016a). Implementation of the Plecas Review, Part One: 

Decision Time. Victoria: Representative for Children and Youth. Retrieved from 

https://www.rcybc.ca/plecasreview 

Representative for Children and Youth. (2016b, May 19). Statement from the Representative. Victoria: 

Representative for Children and Youth. Retrieved from http://www.rcybc.ca/sites/default/ 

files/documents/pdf/reports_publications/statement_19_may_2016.pdf 

Representative for Children and Youth and Office of the Provincial Health Officer. (2015). Growing 

up in B.C., 2015. Victoria, B.C.: Representative for Children and Youth. Retrieved from 

http://www.rcybc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/reports_publications/guibc-2015- 

finalforweb_0.pdf 

Representative for Children and Youth. (2013). When Talk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost 

Opportunity for Aboriginal Children and Youth in B.C. Victoria, B.C.: Representative for 

Children and Youth. Retrieved from https://www.rcybc.ca/reports-and-publications/reports/ 

monitoring-reports/when-talk-trumped-service-decade-lost 

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and 

Researchers. London: Sage. 


References 

Rousseau, J. (2015). The Elusive Promise Of Reconciliation In British Columbia Child Welfare: 

Aboriginal Perspectives And Wisdom From Within The BC Ministry Of Children And 

Family Development. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(2), 44-61. 

Schmidt, G. (2008). Professional Work in Remote Northern Communities: A Social Work Perspective. 

Prince George, BC: University of Northern British Columbia. Retrieved from www.unbc.ca/ 

sites/default/files/assets/community_development_institute/g_schmidt_cdi_paper.pdf 

Signs of Safety (2015). The Signs of Safety Approach to Child Protection Casework. Retrieved from 

http://www.signsofsafety.net/signs-of-safety/ 

Sinha, V., and Kozlowski, A. (2013). The Structure of Aboriginal Child Welfare in Canada. 

The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 4(2), Article 2. Retrieved from 

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=iipj 

Sinha, V., Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., et al. (2011). Kiskisik Awasisak: Remember the Children. 

Understanding the Overrepresentation of First Nations Children in the Child Welfare System. 

Ontario: Assembly of First Nations. 

Southern First Nations Network of Care (2010). Report on the Section 4 Review of Southeast Child and 

Family Services. Manitoba: First Nations of Southern Manitoba Child and Family Services 

Authority. Retrieved from http://www.southernnetwork.org/docs/Report%20on%20the%20 

Section%204%20Review%20of%20Southeast%20Child%20and%20Family%20Services.pdf 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the 

Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 

Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Retrieved from www.trc.ca 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). (2015b). What We Have Learned: 

Principles of Truth and Reconciliation. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of 

Canada. Retrieved from www.trc.ca 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015c). Truth and Reconciliation Commission 

of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 

Retrieved from www.trc.ca 

Walmsley, C. (2005). Protecting Aboriginal Children. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 


Contacts 

Phone 

In Victoria: 250-356-6710 

Elsewhere in B.C.: 1-800-476-3933 

E-mail 

rcy@rcybc.ca 

Fax 

Victoria: 250-356-0837 

Prince George: 250-561-4624 

Burnaby: 604-775-3205 

Website 

www.rcybc.ca 

Offices 

#400 1019 Wharf Street 

Victoria, B.C. V8W 2Y9 

1475 10th Avenue 

Prince George, B.C. V2L 2L2 

#150 4664 Lougheed Hwy. 

Burnaby, B.C. V5C 5T5 

B.C.’s Representative 

for Children and Youth 

and RCYBC Youth 

@rcybc and @rcybcyouth 

Rep4Youth 

@rcybcyouth

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?